THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. versus NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 472 · Decided: 05-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 472 
THE NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. 
v. 
NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. ·CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - s.3(1J(a) & (b) -
Exemption from application of the Act 1999 - Claim for -
C Tenability - Status. of appellant- National Textile Corporation 
- Textile Undertaking 'P' had tenancy rights in the premises 
in question - Act 1995 came into effect leading to statutory 
transfer of the tenancy rights of Textile undertaking 'P' to 
Central Government and thereafter to appellant-NTC -
o Respondent-owner of the premises filed eviction suit against 
the appellant - Appellant claimed protection under exemption 
provisions in the Act 1999 on the ground that the Central 
Government still remained tenant and appellant was merely 
its agent - Held: The Central Government and the appellant 
E are separate legal entities and not synonymous - Appellant 
is being controlled by the provisions of the Act 1995 and not 
by the Central Government - Appellant is a Government 
Company and neither government nor government 
department - Nor can it claim the status of an 'agent' of the 
F Central Government for the simple reason that rights vested 
in the appellant stood crystallised after being transferred by 
the Centr~I Government - Appe!lant cannot be permitted to 
say that though all the rights vested in it but it merely 
remained the agent of the Central Government - Acceptance 
of such a submission would require interpreting the 
G expression 'vesting' as holding on behalf of some other 
person - Such a meaning cannot be given to the expression 
'vesting' - Appellant not entitled for exemption under s.3(1 )(a) 
or 3(1}(b) of the Act 1999 - Appellant directed to file usual 
H 
472 
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. v. NARESHKUMAR 473 
BADRIKUMAR JAGAD 
undertaking to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of A 
the premises to respondent No. 1 - Textile Undertakings 
(Nationalisation) Act, 1995 - Contract Act, 1872- ss.182 and 
230. 
Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 - s.3(1) 
8 
and (2) - Right, title and interest of textile undertaking vested 
in Central Government and thereafter in appellant-National 
Textile Corporation by statutory transfer - Meaning of the 
expression 'vesting' - Held: 'Vesting' means having obtained 
an absolute and indefeasible right - It refers to and is used 
C 
for transfer or conveyance - 'Vesting' in the general sense, 
means vesting in possession - However, 'vesting' does not 
necessarily and always means possession but includes 
vesting of interest as well - 'Vesting' may mean vesting in title, 
vesting in possession or vesting in a limited sense, as 
indicated in the context in which it is used in a particular D 
provision of the Act- Word 'Vest' has different shades, taking 
colour from the context in which it is used - It does not 
necessarily mean absolute vesting in every situation and is 
capable of bearing the meaning of a limited vesting, being 
limited, in title as well as duration. 
E 
Pleadings - Purpose and necessity of - Held: Pleadings 
and particulars are necessary to enable the· court to decide 
the rights of the parties in the trial -- A decision of a case 
cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the 
F 
parties - A party.. has to take proper pleadings and prove the 
same by adducing sufficient evidence - In view of the 
' 
provisions of Order-VII/ Rule 2 CPC, the appellant was under 
an obligation to take a specific plea to show that the eviction 
suit filed against it was not maintainable which it failed to do 
G 
so - The appellant ought to have taken a plea in the written 
statement that it was merely an 'agent' of the Central 
Government, thus.the suit against it was not maintainable -
The appellant did not take such plea before either of the courts 
below -'" More so, whether A is. an agent of B is a question of H 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A fact and has to be properly pleaded and proved by adducing 
evidence - The appellant miserably failed to take the required,_ 
pleadings for the purpose - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - · 
Order VIII, Rule 2. 
8 
Pleadings - New plea - Held: A new plea cannot be 
taken in respect of any factual controversy whatsoever, 
however, a new ground raising a pure legal issue for which 
no inquiry/proof is required can be permitted to be raised by 
the c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.