LexCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA versus N.R.C. LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 3 S.C.R. 604 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA V. N.R.C. LIMITED (Contempt Petition No. 147 of 2014) IN SLP(C) 24874 of 2013 MARCH 05, 2014 [H.L. GOKHALE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] C Contempt jurisdiction: Eviction order - Time granted to tenant to vacate the premises subject to filing of usual undertaking of not transferring interest to third party and payment of mesne profit and vacation of property peacefully on the stipulated date - Undertaking not filed - Contempt o petition - Held: A tenant or an occupant cannot be permitted to remain in tenanted premises of the landlord without paying the rent, or the occupation charges, which is what the respondent attempted to do - The petitioner-landlord would be entitled to take back the possession of the premises with E respect to which the order of eviction has been passed, and same is permitted by taking the help of police if required - Contempt petition allowed. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: Eviction proceedings under the Public Premises F Act against Public Limited Company having paid up share capital of Rs. One crore - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Applicability of - Held: In the instant case, notice to evict issued on 26. 6. 2007 i.e. much after the Act of 1999 came into force on 31.3.2000 - The 1999 Act clearly lays down that it G shall not apply to Public Ltd. Companies having a paid up share capital of Rs. One crores or more - No fault with the action of the landlord taken under the Public Premises Act - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. H 604 CENTRAL BANK OF IN.DIA v. N.R.C. LIMITED 605 Aggrieved with the eviction order, the respondent A filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 19th August, 2013. However, considering the number of employees who were engaged in their registered office situated at that place, they were granted time till the end of December, 2014 to B vacate the premises, subject to filing of the usual undertaking stating that it would not create any third party rights and would pay all the mesne profits in the meanwhile, and would peacefully vacate the premises concerned at the end of December, 2014. However, the C undertaking was not filed, and the mesne profits as required was also not paid. Subsequently one more I.A. was filed by the respondent to be relieved of this undertaking. The said I.A. was not pressed, and the same came to be dismissed. In the instant contempt petition, 0 the grievance of the petitioner was that the respondent has not complied with the order dated 19th August, 2013 and, therefore, an action be taken against the.m for committing contempt of the said order. Allowing the contempt petition, the Court HELD: 1. The notice to evict was issued on 26th June 2007 much after the Maharashtra Rent Control Act came into force on 31.3.2000. This Act clearly lays down that it shall not apply to Public Ltd. Companies having a paid up share capital of Rs. One crores or more. There is no dispute that the respondent is a company having a paid up share capital of more than rupees one crore. That being so, the protective umbrella of the State Rent Control E F ~ct which was available to the respondent would not be G available to it beyond 31.3.2000. That being so, the provisions of Public Premises Act would clearly apply to these premise on or after 31.3.2000 for the purposes of eviction of unauthorised occupants and therefore, the action initiated by the petitioner could not be faulted with. H 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A [para 7] [611-B-C, F-H] 2. The company's affairs were before the BIFR, and it also had correspondence with the trade union representing the employees, but the employees union 8 was not ready to help in any manner. These were different aspects, the financial difficulties of the respondent were brought to the notice of this Court by filing the I.A. which was not pressed, and that being so, the Issue cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. A tenant or an occupant cannot be permitted to be on the premises of the landlord C without paying the rent, or the occupation charges, which is what the respondent is attempting to do. The petitioner will be entitled to take back the possession of the concerned premises with respect to which the order of eviction has been passed, and same Is permitted by D taking the help of police If required. [paras 8, 9)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.