LexRASHPAL MALHOTRA versus MRS. SATYA RAJPUT AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
j
A
RASHPAL MALHOTRA
"'
v.
MRS. SATYA RAJPUT AND ANOTHER
SEPTEMBER 11, 1987
B
(SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA JJ.]
Constitution of India, Article 136: Court acts not only as 'Court of
'{
law' but also as 'Court of equity'.
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: ss. 2(i) & L3-
--
c Eviction-'Tenant' an entity not a juristic person-Eviction Suit-
Whether maintainable.
I
The landlady, respondent No, 1, leased out the premises in ques- I
lion in Chandigarh to respondent No. 2, for residence of its General
Manager, the appellant. The lease deed was signed on behalf of the
D lessee 'for Haryana Milk Food Corporation' by R.P. Malhotra, the
appellant. When the landlady came to know in the end of 1974 that the
appellant had left the services of the respondent No. 2, she stopped
accepting rent from him. She filed an application under s. 13 of the East
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction against him and
respondent No. 2 In November 1977 on the grounds: (a) non-payment of
E
rent from January 1, 1975 onwards, (h) the subletting of entire pre-
~-
mises by respondent No. 2 to the appellant, and (c) bona fide personal
requirement. That application was contested by the appellant and
respondent No. 2 who filed written statement contending that respon-
....
dent No. 2 was just a trade name and not a legal entity, nor it was a -
partnership firm for, the owner of the said concern was Kallash Chemi-
F
cal and Textile Mills Ltd., that there could not have been any lease with
such a non-legal entity, and that a suit against such a body was not
~
maintainable.
Both the trial court and the appellant court ordered ejectment of
the appellant and respondent No. 2 holding that respondent No. 2 was
0
the tenant under respondent No. 1, that the appellant had taken the
premises on behalf of respondent No. 2, that they were in arrears of
rent, and that the premises were bona fide required by respondent
No.I.
;.--
~
The High Court dismissed the appellant's revision petition.
H
110
RASHPAL MALHOTRA v. MRS. S. RAJPUT
111
Dismissing the appeal by special leave,
A
HELD: I. It is apparent from the facts that the tenancy agree·
ment was not with the appellant, and the lease was signed by him on
behalf of the other entity though not strictly legal but it was entered into
by a legal entity, namely, the Kailash Chemical and Textile Mills Ltd.
The parties knew that the appellant was not a tenant. The parties were B
aware that the company was the real owner of respondent No. 2. The
company had accepted that position. Neither respondent No. 2 nor its
owner company was, therefore, prejudiced by holding that the lessee
was not the appellant and they have not been prejudiced by not being made
formal parties. The order of eviction, therefore, does not call for any
interference. [116B-C]
c
r
Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Company and Anr. v. Katihar
Jute Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., A.LR. 1969 Calcutta 496 at page 511; Rajendra
~
Prasad Oil Mills, Kanpur and Anr. v. Smt. Chunni Devi and Ors.,
A.I.R. 1969 Allahabad page l; Mis. M.K.M. Moosa Bhai Amin, Kota
v. Rajasthan Textile Mills, Bhawanimandi A.I.R. 1974 Rajasthan 194 D
and Educational Supplies Depot, Trivandrum v. Vithoba High School
and Others, 1970 Kerala Law Journal Reports 43, referred to.
2. The Supreme Court Is more than a court of appeal. It exercises
power under Article 136 only when there is supreme need. Therefore,
~-
even if legal Daws might be electronically detected, the Court cannot
E
interfere save manifest injustice or substantial question of public
importance. [116F)
In the instant case, it has been held by the High Court and the
courts below that no deposit had been made in accordance with law.
Merely because in the form of the lease the owner was not mentioned F
~
and as such was not made a party to the suit and the lease was
•
purported to be entered into with an entity which was not a juristic
l
person and a suit was filed against such non-juristic person, this Court
should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the appellate
authority and the High Court. [116G·H; 117A]
G
Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi v. K. Singh and
Company, Ranchi, A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 2031 and Baigana and
;-
Others v. Deputy Collector of Consolidation and Ors., [1978) 3 S.C.R.
509, referred to.
3. The Supreme Court in exercising its power under Article 136 H
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] 1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.