LexM/S UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD. versus RANI DEVI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 673 MIS UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD. v. RANI DEVI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 5335 of2017) APRIL 18, 2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) Uttar Pradesh Industrial Housing Act, 1955: A B s.13 - Housing for industrial workers in the State of U.P - Tenancy between employer and employee - Jurisdiction of Civil C Courts to try eviction suit flied by employer under the Act, if barred - Held: s.13 only restricts the rights of the worker/person in approaching the Courts to question the legality of the action taken under the Act - It cannot be construed as ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to try eviction suit flied by employer under the Act ~ A suit flied to claim eviction from any accommodation is a suit of D "civil nature" and, therefore, a Civil Court is competent to take cognizance of such suit as provided uls. 9, CPC, 1908 unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred - Thus, in the instant case, Civil Court was justified in trying the eviction suit flied by employer against the worker (husband of the respondent) who failed E to vacate the quarter after his retirement from employment - Order of Trial Court directing eviction of respondents, restored - Respondents granted 3 months' time to vacate the suit quarter on depositing entire decreeta/ amount awarded by Trial Court and also to deposit three months' rent by way of damages for use and occupation at the rate determined by the Trial Court - Code of F Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.9. s.21 - Deletion of. by 1972 amendment - Effect of - Held: The power to decide eviction cases under the Act was earlier vested with Labour Commissioner uls.21 - However. the deletion of said section resulted in restoring the power to try eviction suit by Civil G Courts in terms of s.9, CPC, 1908 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -s.9. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Exclusion of - Inference of - Held: Provisions excluding jurisdiction of Civil Courts are required to be construed strictly - H 673 ·. 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 6 S.C.R. A Thus, exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion is either to be "explicitly expressed or clearly implied" - Interpretation of Statutes - Strict rule of interpretation - Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction - Ouster of Civil Courts jurisdiction - Burden B of proof - Held: Existence of jurisdiction in Civil Courts to decide questions of civil nature is a general rule whereas exclusion is an exception - Therefore, the burden to prove such exclusion is on the party who raises such a contention. Rent Control and Eviction - Contract of tenancy blw employer and employee - Respondents husband-worker allotted quarter C during his employment, failed to vacate it on his retirement and after his death respondents continued to occupy the same - Held: A· contract of tenancy created between the employer and employee in relation to any accommodation terminates on the cessation of the employment of the employee - Such employee then has no right to D remain in occupation of the accommodation - He has to then surrender the accommodation to his employer. E F Companies Act, 1956 - s. 630 - Effect of - Held: S.630 enables the Company to file a complaint against the employee, if. on termination of his employment, he fails to vacate· the accommodation allotted to him by the Company by virtue of his employment. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The rigour of Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Housing Act, 1955 does not put any fetter on the powers of the Civil Court to try and decide the eviction cases filed by the State or any authority or allotee of the houses against the person in possession of the quarter on and after 28.04.1972. [Para 21) [681-D) 1.2 Section 13 only provides that if any order is passed by the State Government or Labour Commissioner under the Act, it · G shall not be called in question in any Court and no Court shall grant any injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the Act. This only means that no industrial worker or any person alike. him, aggrieved of any order passed under the Act will have a right to file any case in the Civil· Court to challenge H the legality of any such order or/and action taken under the Act. MIS UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD. v. RANI DEVI & ANR. 675 In other words, it only restricts the rights of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.