9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Whether the Corporation can be regarded as a Government undertaking so as to attract the applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of the premises held by it? - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that the Corporation is registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Corporation is under the administrative control of the State Government and almost all the shares of the Corporation, are held by the State Government, apart from a few shares which are held by IAS officers in their official capacity. It owes its status as a body corporate to the Companies Act enacted by the Parliament - the Appellant company is a Government undertaking as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. Whether the premises owned by the Corporation and let out to respondent No.1 are government premises within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- When a seat in a room of a Government premises is let out to a tenant, certainly it will be a Government premises. Again, if a seat in a room is let out together with the gardens; grounds and outhouses, if any, appurtenant to a seat in a room, such tenancy will be of a Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2201 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 36170 of 2014) - - - Dated:- 18-3-2020 - S. ABDUL NAZEER And DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Chatterji, Adv. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, AOR Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Santnu Ghosh,Adv.Ms. Dimple Mahra, Adv. Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2014 in G.A. 1172/2014, A.P.O.T. No.175/2014 with Writ Petition No. 36 of 2014, whereby the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has quashed the order of eviction passed by appellant No.5 against respondent No.1. 3. Appellant No.1 herein, namely, the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (for short the Corporation ) is a government of West Bengal undertaking engaged in developing, assisting and encouraging growth of small-scale industries within the State of West Bengal. It is a government company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The entire shareholding of the Corporation is held by the State Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.8 was executed in the same industrial area in favour of respondent No.1. Mutation process of the said three plots was completed on 26.09.2012 by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. 9. On 10.10.2012, the Corporation issued a notice calling upon respondent No.1 to show-cause as to why the tenancy should not be terminated for violation of the terms of the lease. This notice was issued invoking clause 3 of the lease deed. Respondent No.1 submitted a reply dated 06.11.2012 to the show-cause notice. After hearing, respondent No.1 was informed by a letter dated 12.12.2015 that three months time had been extended to commence construction work at the plots. Since nothing was done, the prescribed authority, by notice dated 09.11.2013, terminated the lease deed in accordance with Section 3(2) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, (for short the Act ) read with Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy and Regulation) Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules ). The ground of termination was violation of clauses 2(c) and (g) of the lease deed, i.e. for not taking steps for construction of the factory building. By the said notice, respondent No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corporation is not a Government undertaking. He submits that the appellant-Corporation is a Government company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Hence, it owes its status as a body corporate to the Companies Act, 1956. The Memorandum and Article of Association of the Corporation demonstrated that it is fully under the administrative and financial control of the State Government. It is further contended that the High Court was not right in holding that the premises in question is not a Government premises within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act. The plot leased out to respondent No.1 was a part of the larger premises which included office building, etc. The entirety of the land, as well as the building must be construed as one unit which clearly falls within the definition of Government premises . 17. On the other hand, Shri Debal Banerjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the appellant Corporation does not satisfy the definition of Government undertaking in Section 2(b) of the Act. Secondly, it is contended that the premises which is the subject matter of this appeal is not covered under the provisions of the Act. Bare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other relations of the tenant who ordinarily reside with him and are dependant on him; (c) reasonable distance shall mean any distance not exceeding twenty five kilometers, or] (ii) made default in payment of rent for three consecutive months . Provisos to Section 3 and the other subsections are not relevant for the purpose of this case. 20. The definition of the expressions Government Premises , Government undertaking and Premises are relevant. They are as under: 2. Definitions. (a) Government premises means any premises which is owned by the State Government or by a Government undertaking but does not include the official residence of any person authorized to occupy and premises in consideration of the office which he holds under the State Government or a Government undertaking for the time being; (b) Government undertaking means a body corporate constituted by or under a Central or State Act which is under the administrative control of the State Government or in which the State Government has exclusive proprietary interest; (c) premises means any building or hut and includes part of a building or hut and a seat in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y with the definition of premises under Section 2(c) of the Act. Government premises defined in Section 2(a) cannot be read in isolation of the definition of premises under Section 2(c) of the Act. In order to give complete meaning to the expression Government premises , we should first implant the definition of premises under Section 2(c) in the place of the premises appearing in Section 2(a) and then consider as to whether a premises is a Government premises or not. It is an undisputable canon of construction that when an expression is defined in the statute, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, the expression has to be construed as having the same meaning assigned to it in the dictionary clause of the statute. Therefore, the definition premises under Section 2(c) has to be read into the definition of Government premises under Section 2(a). 25. Thus, if we read the definition of Government premises appearing in Section 2(a) of the said Act conjointly with the definition of premises appearing in Section 2(c) of the said Act, it not only includes a building or a part of it or a hut or a part of it but also includes a seat in a room, let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l-scale industrial zone according to the site plan. The Corporation constructed an administrative block after demolition of the existing structure and wherever necessary, it divided the area into small plots. Respondent No.1 was allotted three plots of land, which did not contain any structure at the time of lease. 28. The lease in respect of these three plots of land was terminated for violation of clauses 2(c) and 2(g) of the lease deed. It is alleged in the show-cause notice at Annexure P3 dated 10.10.2012, that respondent No.1 failed to take any steps for construction of the factory building as per clause 2(c) of the lease deed since taking over possession of the said plot. By letter dated 19.12.2012 (Annexure P5), three months further time was extended for starting construction work on the plots in question. However, respondent No.1 failed to start the construction of the factory building even during this extended period. Consequently, the tenancy in respect of these plots of land was terminated. 29. Thus, when the eviction proceedings were initiated, admittedly, the land in question did not contain any structures. If the bare land is let out by the government underta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
