P. N. Bakshi, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a Corporation established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. THE petitioner has its Central Office at Bombay and five zonal offices. THE Central Zonal Office at Kanpur governs the territories of U. P. and Madhya Pradesh. A group of properties known as Free India Estate was owned by the Free India Insurance Company Ltd. at Kanpur. THE tenements of this property had been let out to various tenants. This property vested in the Life Insurance Corporation on 1-9-1956.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the Zonal Manager wrote to the District Magistrate, Kanpur on 16-10-1956 for the allotment of the various tenements of the Free India Estate to the employees of the Corporation who have been transferred to Kanpur from time to time and were faced with the difficulties of a suitable residential accommodation. THE then Collector, Kanpur is alleged to have given assurance to the petitioner that in the event of the premises falling vacant, he shall be consulted before making allotment. Srimati Raj Kumari Varma was a tenant of house No. 42 Free India Estate. She died on 16-8-1972. On 22-8-1972 an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 16 (I) (b) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of this accommodation in favour of the Corporation vide annexure 5 attached to the writ petition. Along with this application annexure A was attached which disclosed the names of 29 officers of Class I of the Corporation, 120 employees of class 3 and 28 employees of class 4 who were on the waiting list and were in pressing need of the accommodation. In other words the case of the corporation was that it bona fide needed the premises in question for accommodating one of its employees mentioned in annexure A. On 27-8-1972 objections were filed to this application by Smt. Sneh Srivastava and Smt. Prakash Wati respondents 5 and 6 to this writ petition who claim to be in possession of the premises after the death of Smt. Raj Kumari Varma. THEse respondents claimed to be the daughters of the deceased. THE said objections have been attached as annexure 6 to this writ petition. A reply thereto was filed by the Life Insurance Corporation on 20-9-1972 vide annexure 7. On 23-10-1972 the Rent Control Eviction Officer, Kanpur rejected the release application filed by the petitioner vide annexure 8. THE Rent Control Eviction Officer also found that premises No. 42 had legally fallen vacant. He further held that the need of the petitioner was not genuine. A copy of the said order is attached as annexure 8 to this writ petition. THEreafter, the petitioner as well as the heirs of the deceased filed appeals before the District Judge which were dismissed by him on 7-4-1973 vide annexure II filed along with this petition. It appears that house No. 42 was allotted on 30-10-1972 to Sri Beni Singh Awasthi, respondent No. 4 a true copy of this allotment order is attached as annexure 9 to this writ petition. Writ No. 2262 of 1973 was filed in this Court by Smt. Sneh Srivastava and others aggrieved by the order of the District Judge mentioned above. This writ petition was dismissed on 23-10-1975. The Life Insurance Corporation also filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of the District Judge. I have heard counsel for both the parties. The main question which has been convassed before me by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the view of law taken by the District Judge in interpreting the question whether in the case of a Corporation, the need of the employees is also to be taken into consideration has been erroneously decided. Learned counsel has submitted that the Corporation being juristic entity can only act through its offices under the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. The Corporation is fully competent to apply for a release of premises belonging to it for the purpose of accommodating its employees. I shall now consider the force of this submission.
(3.) SECTION 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 runs as under :- "16 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the District Magistrate may by order :- (a) require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant, or a part of such building but not appurtenant land alone, to any person specified in the order (to be called an allotment order) or (b) release the whole or any part of such building, or any land appurtenant thereto in favour of the landlord (to be called a release order). (2) No release order under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be made unless the District Magistrate is satisfied that the building or any part thereof or any land appurtenant thereto is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction, by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family,, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him either for residential purpose or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling.........." In the instant case, an application has been made by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The ground on which the application is made is that there is a large list of its employees who have not been provided with residential accommodation and who are in urgent need of the said accommodation. On this ground the landlord i.e., the Life Insurance Corporation claims release of the property in its favour. The District Judge while considering this question was of the view that since the Life Insurance Corporation does not come within the definition of the word 'Family' as defined under the Act, it is not entitled to apply for a release of the property belonging to it after it is vacated by the tenant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has quoted Salmond on Jurisprudence' 12th Edition Article 68 in support of his contention that :- "A corporation, having neither soul nor body, cannot act save through the agency of some representative in the world of real men. For the same reason it can have no interests, save those which are attributed to it as a trustee for or otherwise on behalf of actual human beings." ;