Page 1

REPORTABLE     

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA       CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

               CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 147 OF 2014

         IN      SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.24874/2013        

Central Bank of India ..    Petitioner(s)

                    Versus

N.R.C. Limited ..    Respondent(s)  

J U D G M E N T

H.L.GOKHALE, J.

 This contempt petition makes a grievance that the  

respondent-N.R.C.  Ltd.  has  not  complied  with  the  order  

dated  19th  August,  2013 passed  by  this  Court  while  

dismissing their SLP (C) No.24874 of 2013, and an action be  

taken against them for committing contempt of the above  

order passed by this Court.  The said order dismissed the  

SLP filed by the respondent, challenging their eviction  

from the premises occupied by them.  However, considering  

the  number  of  employees  who  were  engaged  in  their  

registered office situated at that place, they were granted  

time till the end of December, 2014 to vacate the premises,  

subject to filing the usual undertaking in the Registry of  

this Court within four weeks from that date, stating that  

the petitioner will not create any third party rights, all  

the mesne profits will be paid in the meanwhile, and will  

peacefully  vacate  the  premises  concerned  at  the  end  of

Page 2

December, 2014.  

2. That  special  leave  petition  was  filed  to  

challenge the judgment dated 10th May, 2013 of the High  

Court of  Bombay in Writ Petition No.2898/2011 and L.P.A.  

No.174 of 2012 under which the order passed by the Estate  

Officer of the appellant, and confirmed by the City Civil  

Court was left undisturbed.  The order dated 19th August,  

2013  required  the  respondent  to  file  the  necessary  

undertaking, but it was not filed, and the mesne profits as  

required have also not been paid.  It is also pointed out  

that subsequently one more I.A., being I.A. No.2 of 2014,  

was taken out by the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. to be relieved  

of this undertaking, and that I.A. was not pressed, and the  

same came to be dismissed by this Court by its order dated  

7th October, 2013.   

3. Mr.  Raju  Ramachandran,  learned  senior  counsel,  

appearing for the petitioner Central Bank of India points  

out that the financial difficulties of the respondent were  

placed on record in that I.A. and subsequently the same has  

been withdrawn.  That being so, there was no reason for the  

respondent not to file the undertaking and not to pay the  

mesne profits as required.  He has drawn our attention to  

two  judgments  of  this  Court  in  almost  similar  

circumstances.  One was the case of Ram Pyari (Smt.) & Ors.  

vs. Jagdish Lal reported in 1992 (1) SCC 157, and the other  

: 2 :

Page 3

was that of Santanu Chaudhuri vs. Subir Ghosh reported in  

2007 (10) SCC 253.  In both these matters undertakings to  

vacate were given but they were not complied with, and  

therefore the contempt petition was filed.  This Court in  

both these matters noted that since undertaking was not  

given, there could not be any contempt as such, but the  

order passed by this Court had to be complied with, and  

therefore permitted the  petitioners to take the help of  

police  to  take  back  the  possession  of  the  concerned  

premises.

4. Mr. T.R. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel,  

appeared for the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd. He relied upon the  

judgment  of  this  Court  in  Sushil  Kumar vs.  Gobind  Ram  

reported in 1990 (1) SCC 193 to submit that the Estate  

Officer was coram non judice, since according to him he did  

not have jurisdiction to pass the order of eviction.  He  

referred  to  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

Jagmittar  Sain  Bhagat vs.  Director,  Health  Services,  

Haryana reported in 2013 (10) SCC 136 to submit that the  

question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage.  He  

has drawn our attention to the judgment rendered by this  

Court in C.A.No.1970 of 2014 on 11th February, 2014 in the  

case of  Dr. Suhas H. Pophale vs.  Oriental Insurance Co.  

Ltd.  and  Its  Estate  Officer to  which  one  of  us  (H.L.  

Gokhale,J.) was a party.  Mr. Andhiyarujina has submitted  

: 3 :

Page 4

that  this  judgment  clearly  lays  down  that  the  Public  

Premises  (Eviction  of  Unauthorized  Occupants)  Act,  1971  

will not apply prior to the Act coming into force, that is  

prior to 16th September, 1958.  He has drawn our attention  

to various paragraphs of this judgment and submitted that  

though this judgment has been rendered subsequent to the  

dismissal of the present special leave petition, inasmuch  

as the law is now clarified, the respondent-N.R.C. Ltd.  

cannot be said to be an unauthorized occupant, nor can the  

action under the Public Premises Act be said to be valid.  

He pointed out that the N.R.C. Ltd. has been a tenant of  

this property since about 1946.  Subsequently, the building  

wherein its premises are situated, was taken over by the  

Life Insurance Corporation, and thereafter by the Central  

Bank of India.  In view of this judgment, the relationship  

between the Central Bank of India and the N.R.C. Ltd. as  

landlord and tenant will continue to be governed under the  

Bombay Rent Act and now under The Maharashtra Rent Control  

Act, 1999.

5. Inasmuch as this submission has been raised by  

Mr. Andhiyarujina, learned senior counsel, we would like to  

point  out  that  this  judgment  in  Dr.  Pophale’s  case  

clarifies the legal position as laid down by this Court  

earlier in the case of  Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. vs.  

Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in 1990 (4) SCC 406.  

: 4 :

Page 5

That judgment has held that the Public Premises Act and the  

State  Rent  Control  Acts  were  both  referable  to  the  

concurrent list, and would be valid in their spheres, but  

Public  Premises  Act  will  prevail  to  the  extent  of  any  

repugnancy.  Therefore, this Court held earlier in the case  

of Banatwala and Company vs. Life Insurance Corporation of  

India & Anr. reported in 2011 (13) SCC 446 that to the  

extent  the  Public  Premises  Act  covers  the  relationship  

between the landlord and the tenant, namely, for eviction  

of   unauthorized  occupants and for recovery of arrears of  

rent, the Public Premises Act  will apply and not in other  

aspects of their relationship.  This is why in Banatwala's  

case  (supra)  it  was  held  that  the  application  for  the  

maintenance of the premises would lie to the Court of Small  

Causes in Mumbai, and it will not be hit by the provisions  

of the Public Premises Act.  The issue in Dr. Suhas H.  

Pophale's case was as to when the Public Premises Act will  

apply, and it was laid down that the Act will not apply  

prior to the Act coming into force, and until the premises  

concerned  belonged  to  the  concerned  public  corporation,  

whichever is the later date.  This was on the footing that  

if there are any welfare provisions in the statutes, the  

legislature cannot be intended to have taken them away if  

there is no repugnancy.   

6. In Dr. Suhas H. Pophale's case the judgment of  

: 5 :

Page 6

this Court in the case of  Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh,  

Nagpur vs. The Model Mills, Nagpur and Anr. reported in AIR  

1984 S.C. 1813 was specifically referred in paragraph No.29  

to point out that if there is any welfare provision in a  

statute it cannot be taken away.  This was in the context  

of the Payment of Bonus Act.  It was also held that the  

judgment in  M/s Jain Ink Manufacturing Company vs.  Life  

Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. reported in 1980 (4)  

SCC  435  did  not  consider  the  issue  of  protection  in  a  

welfare legislation to the tenant, prior to the premises  

becoming  public  premises,  and  the  issue  of  

retrospectivity.  So  also  these  issues  were  not  in  

consideration in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (supra).  

In paragraph 49 of Dr. Pophale’s case, this Court discussed  

the inter relation between Article 254(1) and 254 (2) of  

the Constitution, and specifically pointed out that the  

Government and the statutory corporations were taken out of  

the protective umbrella when the Maharashtra Rent Control  

Act was passed, and so they would be covered under the  

Public Premises Act, but of course from the date when the  

Act comes into force or from the date when the premises  

belong  to  the  concerned  Government  corporation.   What  

applies to the landlord, equally applies to the tenants.

7. As  far  as  the  present  action  initiated  by  the  

Central Bank of India is concerned, the notice to evict was  

: 6 :

Page 7

issued on 26th June, 2007, much after the Maharashtra Rent  

Control Act came into force on 31.3.2000.  This Act clearly  

lays down that it shall not apply to Public Ltd. Companies  

having a paid up share capital of Rs. One Crore or more.  

Section 3 (1) (b) of the Act reads as follows:-

3   Exemption (1) This act shall not apply (a) ........ (b)  To any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any  Public  Sector  Undertakings  or  any  Corporation  established by or under any Central or State Act, or  foreign  missions,  international  agencies  multinational  companies,  and  private  limited  companies and public limited companies having a paid  up share capital of rupees one crore or more."

There is no dispute that the respondent N.R.C.  

Ltd. is a company having a paid up share capital of more  

than  rupees  one  crore.   That  being  so,  the  protective  

umbrella of the State Rent Control Act which was available  

to the N.R.C. Ltd. would not be available to it beyond  

31.3.2000.   That  being  so,  the  provisions  of  Public  

Premises Act would clearly apply to these premise on or  

after  31.3.2000  for  the  purposes  of  eviction  of  

unauthorised occupants and therefore, the action initiated  

by the Central Bank of India could not be faulted with.

8. Mr.  Andhiyarujina,  learned  senior  counsel,  

appearing for the N.R.C. Ltd. has drawn our attention to  

the fact that the company’s affairs are before the BIFR,  

and  it  also  had  correspondence  with  the  trade  union  

: 7 :

Page 8

representing the employees, but the employees union was not  

ready to help in any manner.  Those are different aspects,  

and as pointed out by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior  

counsel, the financial difficulties of N.R.C. Ltd. were  

brought to the notice of this Court by filing the I.A.No.2  

of 2014 which was not pressed, and that being so, the issue  

cannot  be  allowed  to  be  re-agitated.   A  tenant  or  an  

occupant cannot be permitted to be on the premises of the  

landlord  without  paying  the  rent,  or  the  occupation  

charges, which is what N.R.C. Ltd. is attempting to do.   

9. This being the position, in our view, the Central  

Bank will be entitled to take back the possession of the  

concerned  premises  with  respect  to  which  the  order  of  

eviction has been passed, and we permit it to resume the  

same by taking the help of police if required.   

The  contempt  petition  is  allowed  in  the  above  

terms.

               ...................J.  

             [H.L. GOKHALE ]                                 

                                          ...................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

   NEW DELHI, MARCH 05, 2014.

: 8 :

Page 9

: 9 :