9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi, by the Union of India in 1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 901. Consequently, the petitioner came into exclusive possession of the shop. Clause 8 of the license deed states as under: "The Licensee(s) shall not permit the said premises or any part thereof being used by any other person for any purpose whatsoever without the previous consent in writing of the Government and in default thereof shall be liable for ejectment. The Licensee(s) shall not introduce any partner nor shall he/they transfer possession of the premises or part thereof or otherwise carry on the business in the premises with any other person or assign, transfer, change, otherwise alienate his interest in the premises." 4. The petitioner incorporated a company call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner received a communication dated 2-9-1987 informing her that there had been violation of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and the petitioner was informed that the tenancy would stand determined from October 1987 vide Annexure P-II. 9. The petitioner gave a reply to this communication, stating that she was not given any opportunity for hearing vide Annexure P-III. Thereafter, the respondent initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, against the petitioner. The petitioner filed her objections to the same stating that she had not violated any terms and was not given any show-cause notice. 10. During these proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the premises. 15. A perusal of the counter-affidavit shows that the allegation in paragraph 3( g ) in the writ petition that in November 1976, a company called Romika World Travel (P.) Ltd. was incorporated in which the petitioner and her husband held more than 97.93 per cent share and that the petitioner runs the business from the shop has not been denied. The short question in this case is whether clause 8 of the license deed was violated by the petitioner/appellant or not. 16. It may be noted that the petitioner had not introduced any partner. She has not claimed that she has formed a partnership firm along with someone else to run the shop. She claimed that she has founded an incorporated company called Romika World Travel ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be evicted from the premises, as the same person remains in possession though technically the company now runs the business. In such cases, in our opinion, the persons does not cease to be in possession. He has not handed over the possession to anyone else, he has only changed the form of his business, and this is usually done when a business expands. 22. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has observed : "12. The question therefore, is can the corporate veil be lifted in the present case to reveal the identity of the person or persons behind it ? In all cases where courts have permitted the lifting of the corporate veil, it has been so done to reveal the "true" identity of the company and to expose those persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said shop. If the corporate veil cannot be lifted, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner and the said company are separate and distinct persons. Consequently, user by the said company of the said shop in the facts narrated above would be in violation of the terms and conditions of the License and, in particular, of clause 8 thereof. Clearly, then, the cancellation of the license would be in order. The "domino effect" would be that the order of the Estate Officer and ultimately the judgment of the Additional District Judge upholding the eviction of the petitioner would all be unassailable." 23. With respect we cannot share the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is well-known that it very often happens in the busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Andhra Pradesh High Court vide Vali Pattabhirama Rao v. Sri Ramanuja Ginning Rice Factory (P.) Ltd. AIR 1984 AP 176 ( vide paras 18 29). 27. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner along with her husband has incorporated a company and the shop is being run by that company. In these circumstances, applying the veil of piercing corporate personality , in our opinion, clause 8 has not been violated. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the judgment of the learned ADJ and Estate Officer are set aside. The prayers in the writ petition are allowed and the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the premises in question. Writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
