Om Prakash Garg, J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiff's First Appeal arising out of dismissal of Original Suit No. 104 of 1987 which was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kanpur and ultimately came to be transferred and decided by the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, initially for the relief of declaration that Bungalow, popularly known as "Shrubbery" situate at 16/81 - -Civil Lines, Kanpur vests in the Central Government under the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1986, later replaced by the Act No. XXX of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acquisition Act') on the ground that a portion of the said Bungalow was purchased by Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Juhi Kanpur (hereinafter called as 'Kanpur Undertakings') which is one of the six constituent cotton and textile undertakings of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd., defendant No. 1 (hereinafter called as 'the defendant -company'). A relief of permanent injunction was also claimed in the suit to restrain the defendants from taking possession over the portion of the said property. On the basis of undisputed facts as have come to be unfolded from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them, the thumb -nail sketch of the case is as follows.
(2.) THE respondent Nos. 2 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as 'landlords') were the owners of the "Shrubbery" which was under the tenancy of the defendant -company for a considerable long time. On the ground of personal need, the landlords obtained permission to evict the defendant -company under the provisions of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (Act No. 3 of 1947). The permission granted by the Divisional Commissioner became final on the rejection of the revision application by the State Government, filed by the defendant -company under Section 7 -F of Act No. 3 of 1947. Act No. 3 of 1947 was repealed and substituted by U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) and in view of the provisions of Section 43(2)(rr) of Act of 1972, the permission granted under the repealed Act enured for the benefit of the landlord and an order of eviction was passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 of the Act, 1972. Before the defendant -company could be evicted, it purchased 1/4th share in "Shrubbery" from two of the landlords (Anandi Prasad and Shiv Prasad) by means of two sale deeds dated 29.5.1973 and 4.7.1973 for a total consideration of Rs. 62,500. In this manner, the defendant -company became owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the tenanted property and in view of the fact that the share purchased by the Company was undivided, the order for eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority became inexecutable and accordingly the Prescribed Authority upheld the objection that since the defendant -company has become co -owner of the undivided share in the property, it cannot be evicted. Against the order of the Prescribed Authority, the landlords filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 394 of 1974, which was allowed by this Court on 27.10.1976 with the direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the case afresh. The defendant -company filed Civil Appeal No. 1242 of 1977, by Special Leave, before Hon'ble Supreme Court in which a compromise was arrived at between the landlords and the defendant -company for partition, by metes and bounds of their respective shares and for delivery of possession by defendant -company to the landlords. Under the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the District Judge, Kanpur prepared a plan for partition which was approved with certain amendments by the Apex Court on 17.12,1985. The specified portion which fell to the lot of the defendant -company was little more than its one fourth share. It was, allowed to retain its possession thereon as owner and a sum of Rs. 3,12,782 was required to be paid to the landlords as compensation for excess area. The decree for partition based on compromise was directed to be executed by the District Judge, Kanpur by the following order dated 4.8.1986 passed by the Supreme Court: We nominate the Court of the learned District Judge, Kanpur as the executing Court for the purpose of executing the decree made by this Court in Civil Appeal 1242 of 1977. The payment of all the amounts envisaged by the decree in that appeal shall be made in the said executing court within three weeks from today. No further time will be allowed. We also direct that the arrears of rent payable by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. will be deposited by them in the said executing court within four weeks from today. We clarify further that delivery of possession contemplated by our decree in favour of different parties thereto shall be delivery of vacant possession and any person or persons occupying any part or portion of the properties shall be liable to summary eviction by the executing Court. The defendant -company paid the amount of Rs. 3,12,782 as compensation for the portion which came in its possession after partition in excess of its 1/4th share as owner, besides the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 28,156 to the landlords though the executing Court, i.e., District Judge, Kanpur.
(3.) WHILE appeal No. 1242 of 1977 was pending before Supreme Court, the Central Government had issued an order dated 13th April, 1978 under Section 18 -AAof the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 (hereinafter called "IDR Act, 1951") in respect of the six textile and cotton undertakings of the defendant -company, viz (1) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur; (2) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry; (3) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Naini; (4) Udaipur Cotton Mills, Udaipur; (5) Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Maunath Bhanjan, and (6) Raebareilli Textile Mills, Raebareilli. The Central Government appointed the National Textiles Corporation (for short 'NTC') New Delhi to act as the custodian of these undertakings. In turn, the NTC, which was holding company, gave the custodianship of the Kanpur Undertaking to its subsidiary Company - -National Textile Corporation (U.P,) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'NTC U.P.'). In pursuance of the order passed under Section 18 -AA, the management of the Kanpur -Undertaking was taken over by NTC U.P. and in the process it dispossessed the Company of a portion of "Shrubbery". The order under Section 18 -AA was challenged by the Company by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 408 of 1978 before the Delhi High Court, which recorded a finding that the bungalow "Shrubbery" and certain other properties and shares are not the related assets of Kanpur Undertaking and as such, they directed to be kept outside the purview of the order passed under Section 18 -AA. A further direction was issued to the NTC U.P., to restore the possession to the defendant -company. Some of the other pleas raised by the defendant -company did not find favour with the Delhi High Court. The order of the Delhi High Court gave rise to appeals and cross appeals before the Supreme Court, which decided the same by a composite order dated 13.1.1981. The case was remanded for decision afresh as the principles of natural justice were found to have been flagrantly violated. The decision is reported in Swadesh Cotton Mills v. Union of India : 1981 (1) SCC 664. In the historical retrospect it is one part of the story.;