- (1.) Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Sri. R.C. Shukla, Advocate, appearing for he defendant/respondent.
(2.) This is a revision under Section 25 Provincial Small Causes Court Act challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, court no. 10, Gorakhpur in S.C.C. Suit No.12 of 2001, Achintya Kumar Lahiri Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India.
(3.) The plaintiff/revisionist instituted a suit for decree of ejectment from the disputed accommodation, which consists of first floor of the building along with garage within the compound. The rate of rent as claimed by the plaintiff is Rs.2500/- per month. A registered notice was served on 14.2.2001 to the respondent/tenant for arrears of rent from September 1996 up to January 2001 to the tune of Rs. 1,32,500/- (Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand five hundred). The notice was sent to the Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Prabha Complex, Baxipur, Gorakhpur. The tenant sent a reply on 5.3.2001 stating therein that the rent has been deposited in the court of Civil Judge (junior Division) Gorakhpur w.e.f. September 1996 and, therefore, it is contended that no rent was due whatsoever. A copy of the notice has been annexed as annexure no.2 and its reply as annexure no. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. Subsequent thereto another notice was given on 25.7.2001 by the plaintiff determining the tenancy and to vacate the premises within a period of thirty days. It is asserted on the basis of an inquiry made from the post office by the plaintiff that the said notice was delivered to the defendant/ respondent on 26.7.2001. A copy of the inquiry report has been annexed as annexure no.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. Since vacant possession was not handed over, the suit was instituted. Copy of the plaint has been annexed as annexure no. 1 and the written statement has been annexed as annexure no. 1 and the written statement has been annexed as annexure no.6 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application no.6 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the notice terminating the tenancy was illegal as it was sent to the Divisional Office and not to the Head Office of Life Insurance Corporation which is situated at Mumbai. Objection raised was that the Life Insurance Corporation is a Central Government Undertaking and, therefore, tenancy could be terminated only by giving a notice to the Director or Chairman through its Secretary of the registered office situated at Mumbai and therefore the suit is barred under Order 29 Rule 2 C.P.C. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the determination of the tenancy by the landlord is illegal as another suit was instituted on a previous oc- casion vide suit no. 18 of 1991, which was dismissed. A revision filed against the said judgment was dismissed. A revision filed against the said judgment was dismissed. Thereafter, a review was also dismissed. It is further contended that another suit was instituted by Smt. Jaishree Lahiri in the year 1986 for getting the accommodation vacated. The accommodation in question is Divisional Office and the accommodation is also used by the Officers of Life Insurance Corporation, who come from out side.As many as six issues were framed by the Judge Small Causes Court, issue no. 1 was whether the plaintiff has determined the tenancy of the defendant/respondent? Issue no.2 was whether the suit is barred under Order 29 Rule 2 C.P.C.? Issue no.3 was in respect of validity of the notice dated 25.7.2001. The court below decided issue nos. I and 3 simultaneously against the plaintiff and in favour of the tenant. While coming to this conclusion that the notice was illegal, the court below placed reliance on provision of Section 3 (2) of the Act, it is provided that the Corporation shall be body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal with power, subject to the provision of the Act to acquire hold and dispose of the property and may by its name sue and be sued. Section 4 of the Act provides constitution of the Corporation. On this basis, the court dismissed the suit for the reason that the defendant was not Chairman but was Life Insurance Corporation, Divisional Office through its Senior Divisional Manager. The court below dismissed the suit on the basis of provision of Order 29 Rule 1 C.P.C. as well. No finding was recorded regarding arrears of rent and payment of damages. Argument advanced by Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist is in three folds. First submission is that admittedly Divisional Office of Life Insurance Corporation was tenant and this averment was made in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint, which stands admitted in the written statement. Thus, notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act is to be given to the tenant determining the tenancy. The tenant/respondent has admitted in paragraph no.5 of the written statement that the Divisional Office has received notice determining the tenancy, it sufficiently fulfills requirement of law and the court below illegally held the notice to be invalid. It is fur- ther contended that provision of Order 29 Rules 2 and 3 C.P.C. do not come in way and it could not be said that the suit is barred under the said provision. Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed provision of Order XXIX Rules 2 and 3 C.P.C., which are quoted below: 2. Service on corporation. Subject to any statutory provision regulating service of process, where the suit is against a corporation, the summons may be served (a) on the secretary, or on any director, or other principal officer of the corporation, or (b) by leaving it or sending it by post addressed to the corporation at the registered office, or if there is no registered office, or if there is no registered office then at the place where the corporation carries on business. State Amendment- [Uttar Pradesh] In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in Order XXIX, rule 2, insert the following, after clause (a):- "(aa) on its corporation pleader in the district where the Court issuing summons is located, if one has been appointed and the appointment has been notified to the District Judge under rule 10 of Order XXVII, or. "-U.P.Act (57 of 1976) (1-1-1977) 3. Power to require personal attendance of officer of corporation.- The court may, at any stage of the suit, require the personal appearance of the secretary or of any director, or other principal officer of the corporation who may be able to answer material questions relating to the suit.;