9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se as a registered office. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were collectively known as Tata Textiles. The petitioners claim that specific space or area was not delineated or demarcated for use of Tata Mills Limited in the Bombay House premises and the arrangement was a fluid and flexible one depending upon business needs and exigencies and the changing conditions and circumstances. The petitioner No. 1 used to recover amount of compensation from Tata Textiles and the amount payable was contributed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 and the share of Tata Mills Limited came to approximately ₹ 468.30 per month. The petitioners claim that with effect from April 1982, Tata Mills Limited ceased to make any payment for the use of the space in Bombay House and the amount payable by Tata Mills Limited was contributed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioners claim that Tata Mills Limited was permitted to use the space in Bombay House gratuitously and Tata Mills Limited had no right whatsoever to continue to remain in any part or portion of Bombay House. The petitioners further claim that Tata Mills Limited shifted the office with effect from January 2, 1984 from Bombay House to Army and Navy Buildi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addressed a letter to Tata Mills setting out that the Additional Custodian had appointed and authorised Shri M.N. Acharya, the bearer of the letter to take immediate possession and control of Tata Mills Office at Bombay House together with all fixtures, furnitures, instruments, machines, equipments, automobiles and other vehicles and all goods on or about the said premises. The Tata Mills Limited sent a reply on January 18, 1984 pointing out that the entire Bombay House belongs to the Associated Building Co. Ltd. and Tata Mills Limited was permitted to use part of the Bombay House premises without allotting any specific part or portion and since October 1982 Tata Mills Limited was in occupation gratuitously and the same could be demonstrated with reference to the records of the company. The Tata Mills Limited then pointed out that the company has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the Bombay House or any part thereof of which possession could be handed over to the representative of the Custodian. The Associated Building Company Ltd. also addressed a letter to the Custodian on January 18, 1984 confirming the claim made by Tata Mills Limited. Apprehending that the Custodian mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta Mills Limited ceased to make payment of ₹ 468.30 p.m. which was earlier contributed for occupation of the space. The petitioners have specifically stated that Tata Mills Limited was gratuitously permitted to continue use of the space and Tata Mills Limited does not have any right in law to continue or to remain in use of any portion of Bombay House. In answer to the specific pleadings on behalf of the respondents, return sworn on September 22, 1992 by Virendra Ambalal Inamdar, Secretary of respondent No. 3 is filed. In para 5 of the return, it is claimed that Tata Mills Limited was in occupation of premises in Bombay House as tenant. The Secretary stated that he is not aware and do not admit that specific area was not demarcated for use of Tata Mills Limited. The return then claims that petitioner No.1 was in fact collecting rent (falsely claimed to be compensation by the petitioners) of sum of ₹ 468.30 p.m. and thus Tata Mills Limited were obviously tenant of the premises at Bombay House. Relying on these averments in para 5, Shri Kapadia urged that occupation of Tata Mills Limited was/as a tenant and that right squarely vests in the Custodian. It is impossible to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a portion of the Bombay House in the capacity as a licensee then even that right to occupy the premises vest in the Custodian. It is not possible to accede to the submission of the learned Counsel. Chapter VI of Indian Easements Act, 1882 deals with subject of licences and section 52 provides that where one person grants to another, a right to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, then the right is called a licence. Section 56 provides that a licence cannot be transferred by the licensee or exercised by his servants or agents. Section 62 provides that the licence is deemed to be revoked where the licence is granted to the licensee for holding a particular office, employment or character, and such office, employment or character ceases to exist. It is well settled that the licence granted is a personal right and is neither heritable nor transferable. Shri Kapadia did not dispute that the licence is not transferable by act of parties but urged that licence can be transferred by operation of law. It is not possible to accede t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without authority. 7. Shri Kapadia referred to decision of Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1234, National Textile Corporation Ltd. and others v. Sitaram Mills Ltd. and others, and observations to the following effect:- The legislation was clearly in furtherance of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(b) and (c) of the Constitution. In interpreting such a piece of legislation, the courts cannot adopt a doctrinaire or pedantic approach. It is a well known rule of construction that in dealing with such a beneficent piece of legislation, the courts ought to adopt a construction which would subserve and carry out the purpose and object of the Act rather than defeat it. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are well settled and there cannot be any debate that while considering a beneficent piece of legislation, the courts should adopt the liberal construction. A reference was also made to the decision reported in (1988) 1 CLJ 225, Doypack Systems Private Limited v. Union of India and others, to point out that the expression in relation to must be construed widely. In our judgment, the reference to the decision is not appropriate. The provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
