M/S S.F.Engineer vs Metal Box India Ltd.& Anr

3. The appellant-plaintiff, owner of the suit premises, i.e., Flat Nos. 201 and 204 on second floor of the building known as “Marlow” and two garages Nos. 7 and 8 on the ground floor of the suit building situate at 62-B, Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai, instituted RAE No. 45/84 of 1997 for eviction of the first respondent (defendant No. 1) and its former employee, the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2). For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per the rank in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff in the court below was that the defendant No. 1 was a tenant under the plaintiff on a consolidated monthly rent of Rs.1075/-. The premises, as set forth in the plaint, was let out to the defendant No. 1 exclusively for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to its executive staff and not for any other purpose. Though the defendant No. 2 had no right to remain in possession of the flat No. 201, yet the employer company unlawfully sublet the said flat to him. The plaintiff vide notice dated 19.1.1989 terminated the tenancy of defendant No. 1. The said notice was replied to by the defendant No. 1 through its advocate on 13.2.1989 denying the assertions made in the notice. This compelled the plaintiff to initiate the civil action for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on the ground of subletting, bona fide requirement and non-user for the purpose for which it was let out.

201. As far as flat No. 204 was concerned, the stand of the defendant No. 1 was that it was in occupation of the staff, General Manager, officers and executives of the Company. The claim of bona fide requirement was seriously disputed on many a ground. It was the further case of defendant No.1 that the defendant No. 2, as an officer of defendant No. 1 was allotted flat No. 201 as a part of his service amenities under the terms and conditions stipulated in agreement dated 11.5.1982. On 27.5.1988 the defendant No. 1 was declared a sick company by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 and thereafter on 11.2.1989 the defendant No. 2 resigned from his post which was accepted by the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 2 continued to occupy the premises and the employer withheld his provident fund dues for which the Commissioner of Provident Fund on 19.10.1993 issued a notice to defendant No. 1. At that juncture, the defendant No. 1 filed writ petition No. 2134 of 1993 before the High Court against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the defendant No. 2 for settlement of dues of the defendant No. 2 and for handing over vacant possession of the premises. The defendant No. 1 also filed a criminal complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 which was dismissed for non- prosecution. These asseverations were made to demolish the ground of subletting as asserted by the plaintiff and, eventually, the dismissal of the suit was sought.

6. The defendant No. 2 filed his separate written statement stating, inter alia, that he was not concerned with flat No. 204 and garage No. 8 and he was a statutory tenant in respect of flat No. 201 and he had been in long continuous use and occupation of the suit premises, i.e., flat No. 201 and garage No. 7. It was his further stand that he was not unlawfully occupying the suit premises because he was allowed to use the suit premises as an employee of the defendant No. 1 and hence, he was occupying the part of the suit premises as a lawful sub-tenant with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff.

12. The non-success compelled the defendant No. 1 to invoke the civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned single Judge referred to the filing of the writ petition with regard to the provident fund dues, appeal by way of special leave preferred by the defendant No. 1 and the ultimate settlement arrived at between the two defendants on 4.4.2007, the stand of the defendant No. 1 that there was no consensus between it and the defendant No. 2 allowing to occupy the premises after he ceased to be in Company’s employment and later to initiate action to evict him, and thereafter referred to the decisions in Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India[1], Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur[2] and Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh[3] and took note of certain facts, namely, (i) defendant No. 2 was inducted as a licencee under a licence agreement which was produced before the Courts; (ii) after cessation of his employment defendant No. 2 continued to occupy the premises; (iii) applicant had filed a suit for recovery of overstayal charges and, eventually, was allowed to recover a sum of Rs.4,17,000/- in terms of order of the Court dated 15.3.2007, in Civil Appeal No. 2425 of 2007; (iv) applicant had vacated the premises on 4.4.2007 in terms of the settlement; and (v) applicant was a sick company and not in a position to receive any clandestine payment and concluded thus: -

29. Consequently, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.

March 28, 2014.