9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim is maintainable under section 11(3) of the Act and dismissal of the case on that ground was not correct and the matter was remanded. Section 11(3) of the Act reads as follows : "(3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him...." 2. The bona fide need put forward by the respondent landlord is that the respondent along with his two brothers aged 32, 38 and 28 along with their family members formed a registered company in the name and style of Chackolas Habitat Pvt. Ltd. for the construction and sale of flats and it was registered under the Companies Act. The landlord is one of the directors and the other directors are members of the landlord s family. It is further averred as follows : "The company is receiving good orders one after another for construction of flats, it is submitted that the company has no offices of its own. In other words petitioner has no other building to accommodate the office of Chackolas Habitat. At present the office of the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is set aside." 5. The whole question to be considered is can the need of the company in which the landlord is substantially interested be said to be the landlord s own needs for the purpose of section 11(3) of the Act. One decision referred to in this matter is D.N. Sanghavi Sons v. Ambalal Tribhuwan Das AIR 1974 SC 1026. There the Supreme Court stated that the phrase his own occupation used in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act has got very much significance. The Supreme Court held in paragraph 8 (page 1030) as follows : "The first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 39 provides that at the request of the landlord such accommodation may be allotted to him if he needs it for his own occupation . As section 39 deals with a residential as well as a non-residential accommodation, the expression his own occupation in the first proviso should be amplified to read as his own occupation by way of residence or business . Clauses ( e ) and ( f ) of section 12(1) are complementary to the first proviso to section 39(2). While the first proviso enables the landlord to obtain possession of a vacant accommodation for his own occupation by way of residence or busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partner. A partnership is different from an incorporated company which has its own legal personality. The possibility of the landlord starting a business in the building is not excluded from the section as held by the Supreme Court in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan AIR 1979 SC 272. In Govinda Pai v. Sarvothama Rao [1981] KLT 330 it was held that application by a landlord seeking evic- tion for the purpose of occupation by a firm of which he is a partner is sustainable. In Panduranga Prabhu v. Muhammed Kunju [1994] 2 KLT 1043 it was held that eviction for the bona fide need of his son to accommodate a business which he was carrying on in partnership with others is sustainable. But in Shantilal Thakordas v. Chimanlal Maganlal AIR 1976 SC 2358 the landlord, a partner of a firm sought eviction for his bona fide requirement for the use of the firm. After his death the firm was reconstituted including some outsiders as partners. It was held that the requirement of the deceased landlord cannot be said to be the requirement of the partners. 8. Another decision cited before us was the decision of the Supreme Court in Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) v. Inder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited company, liabilities of share-holders are limited unlike a partnership firm. A shareholder cannot bind another as there is no joint or several liability. A partnership has no legal existence apart from its members. Unlike partnership an incorporated company, is a separate entity distinct from the shareholders. A company is a legal person. This position is well-illustrated in Aron Saloman v. A. Saloman Co. Ltd. [1897] AC 22 HL. This principle laid down in the 18th century is still followed. Therefore, a company is entirely a different persona. By incorporation under the Companies Act, a company is vested with a corporate personality which is distinct from the members who compose it. In this connection we also refer to section 34(2) of the Companies Act, 1956. An incorporated company never dies. It is an entity with perpetual succession. Even if the landlord transfers his shares, the company continues. The company will continue despite change of members or directors as Blackstone has put it "in the like manner as the river Thames is still the same river, though the parts which compose it are changing every instant" and Gower has stated "members may come and go but the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
