LexM/S. SPEEDLINE AGENCIES versus M/S. T. STANES & CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 7 S.C.R. 46 M/S. SPEEDLINE AGENCIES v. M/S. T. STANES & CO. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 4481 of 2010) MAY 14, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - s. 10(3)(a)(i), (iii) - Eviction of tenants - Eviction on C the ground of its own use and occupation - Grant of, by Rent Controller as also Appellate Authority - Amalgamation of erstwhile landlord with transferee company during pendency of revision petition - Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by High Court - Benefit of order of eviction to transferee D company - Entitlement of - Held: Transferee company entitled to the benefit of order of eviction - When a company stands dissolved due to amalgamation, its rights under the decree for eviction devolves on amalgamated company - Decree constitutes an asset - Asset of erstwhile company E devolved on amalgamated company - Business will be continued to be carried by amalgamated company - Purpose of amalgamation would be frustrated, if the amalgamated company is deprived of the same - Companies Act, 1956 - ss. 391 to 394 - Subsequent events. F The landlord-UCS company owned a building with vacant areas. It leased out the said premises with the vacant area to the appellant for use as residence-cum- office for five years on a monthly rent. Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, G 1978 came into force. The landlord company was granted exemption from acquisition of vacant lands under the Act. The Rent Controller fixed the fair rent and the Appellate Authority enhanced it. Thereafter, the name of H the landlord company was changed to STC company. 46 SPEEDLINE AGENCIES v. T. STAN ES & CO. LTD. 4 7 The STC company filed petition u/s. 10(3)(a)(i) and (iii) of A the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction on the ground of its own use and occupation for residential and non-residential purpose. The Rent Controller allowed the petition. The Appellate Authority upheld the order. Aggrieved, appellant filed s revision petition before the High Court. During pendency of the petition, by a Scheme of amalgamation, STC company was transferred to TS-respondent company under the Companies Act. The High Court approved the same. The application for amendment of the cause title c was allowed. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The instant case being one where the order D of eviction is eminently just, fair and equitable as ordered by two authorities and confirmed by the High Court, there is no valid ground for interference, on the other hand, the· conclusion arrived at by the authorities as well as the High Court are concurred with. Taking into consideration the E appellant-tenant is continuing in the premises for more than four decades, time is granted for handing over possession till 31.12.2010. [Para 34] [78-D] 2.1. In the instant case, the petition by the landlord F for eviction of the tenant was filed on 03.04.1987. The cause of action has no relation to amalgamation, irrespective of whether it is prior or subsequent to filing of the application for eviction. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on 09.04.1992. The appeal of the tenant - was disposed of by the Appellate Authority on G 10.04.2003. The rights of the landlord are to be determined as on the date of the application for eviction. The order of eviction crystallized the rights of the landlord. The tenant had filed the revision in the High H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 7 S.C.R. A Court on 18.08.2003. During the pendency of the revision petition, the order for amalgamation under the Companies Act passed by the High Court was made on 26.02.2006 which is a subsequent event. The Revision Petition was disposed of by the High Court on 05.08.2009. Had the B revision petition been disposed of before 26.02.2006, this contention would not have arisen at all. The delay in the disposal of the revision petition should not prejudice the vested rights of the landlord under the decree of the Rent Controller confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Further, c the amalgamation of the erstwhile landlord with the respondent involved not merely the transfer of the particular leasehold property but the entire business of the erstwhile landlord including the requirement of the leasehold premises for the acquired business. [Paras 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.