H.N.Seth, J. - (1.) -An Insurance Company by name Hindustan General Insurance Society Ltd. occupied an accommodation No. 192, Mohalla Ganj Bazar, Lal Kothi, Meerut as a tenant. Subsequently, as a result of Nationalisation the said Hindustan General Insurance Co. Ltd. was merged with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Petitioner). On 7-1-1975 the said accommodation was under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, notified to be vacant. On 14-1-1975, one of the owners of the accommodation moved an application before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer alleging that his tenant Hindustan General Insurance Co. had shifted its office elsewhere and that it had allowed Sri P. K. Jain to occupy the accommodation illegally. He, therefore, prayed that the premises be got vacated and its possession restored to the landlord. On the same date, the Hindustan General Insurance Co. Ltd., formal unit National Insurance Co. Ltd., Meerut through its Branch Manager, Sri P. K. Jain, moved an application before the Rent Control & Eviction Officer, Meerut stating that originally Hindustan General Insurance Co. Ltd. was a tenant of the accommodation. Under a notification issued by the Central Government the said company stood amalgamated with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Meerut. Accordingly, the tenant throughout remained the same person with mere change in nomenclature. The accommodation never fell vacant nor was it about to fall vacant and it throughout remained in occupation of the Hindustan General Insurance Co. Ltd. It, therefore, prayed that the said accommodation may not be declared to be vacant and that it should also not be allotted to any one.
(2.) The Rent Control & Eviction Officer found that after its amalgamation with the National Insurance Co., the Office of Hindustan General Insurance Co. had been shifted to the office of National Insurance Co. situated in Khair Nagar Bazar, Meerut. Thereafter, Sri P. K. Jain had occupied the same for his residence. There was no material on the file to show that Hindustan General Insurance Co. Ltd. had been using the accommodation for residential purposes. He did not accept the contention that as consequence of amalgamation of the two companies the tenancy rights of Hindustan General Insurance Co. Ltd. devolved on the National Insurance Co. Ltd. He held that after the office of the Hindustan General Insurance Company was shifted from the disputed accommodation Sri P. K. Jain illegally occupied it for his residence. In the result, he by an order dated 19-3-1976 rejected the objection dated 14-1-1975 filed by Sri P. K. Jain on behalf of the Hindustan General Insurance Co. Ltd. which by that time had become a unit of National Insurance Co. Ltd. and allotted the accommodation to Manjit Singh Chauhan (respondent No. 2). Being aggrieved the National Insurance Co. Ltd., went up in appeal before the District Judge, Meerut. However, because of change in law, the District Judge treated the said appeal as a revision under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and disposed it of accordingly.
(3.) Before the District Judge, it was contended on behalf of the revisionist that as the disputed accommodation had been let out to a company which eventually merged in a public sector corporation, it was thus public building within the meaning of the expression as used in S. 2 (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of the 1972 and fell outside the purview of the Act. It was accordingly not open to the Rent Control & Eviction Officer to allot the same in favour of Sri Manjit Singh Chauhan. The District Judge, however, opined that the principal question for decision was as to whether the tenant company had vacated the accommodation and had thereby surrendered its tenancy rights therein. The question raised by the revisionist would not be relevant as in case it is held that the accommodation was vacated by the Hindustan General Insurance Co. It would be deemed that it had, in any case, again come within the purview of the Act with effect from the date it was vacated. He also held that the tenancy in the premises in question did not, in view of the provisions contained in (The) General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (No 57 of 1972), devolve upon the National Insurance Company. There was nothing on the record to show if the National Insurance Co. had taken possession of the accommodation or had undertaken the responsibility to pay the rent to the landlord with effect from 1-1-1975. Sri P. K. Jain, who was the Branch Manager of the merged company occupied the accommodation in Jan., 1975 for his residential purposes, but there was nothing on the record to show that it was done under a licence or with the permission of the employer company. The documents filed by the petitioner company indicating that the transferred company had deducted rent from the salary of Sri P. K. Jain merely showed that the said deduction had been made subsequently in the year, 1976. He, therefore, concluded that Sri P. K. Jain had entered into the possession of the house on his own and subsequently got it regularised by his employer, namely, the transferee company. The fact that the original tenant the Hindustan General Insurance Co. became extinct implied that it had surrendered its tenancy right. Since the transferee company neither made itself liable for payment of rent nor did it take possession of the disputed accommodation, and as the landlord did not accept the transferee company as his tenant, the tenancy of the Hindustan General Insurance Company came to an end with effect from 1-1-1975 when it actually vacated the accommodation. In the circumstances, the vacancy had been rightly notified and the allotment order made in favour of Manjit Singh Chauhan was quite valid. In the result, the Additional District Judge vide his order dated 12-3-1979 dismissed the revision.;