IN Appellant held to be as not entitled for


7448 of 2011 Decided On:05.09.2011 Appellants: The National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Respondent: Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad andOrs               MethodologyUsed: Thesucceeding pages contain a case analysis on the supreme court case, TheNational Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors TheFIRAC method of briefing shall be used in the research work, and hence dealswith the headings of facts, issues, rule, analysis/application and conclusion.  Introductionof the case: ·       In this case thenational textile ltd vs naresh Kumar badri Kumar jagad and ors have mentionedabout vacant premises belongs to trust of the respondent.

·       The appellant Maintainabilityof Suit is questioned. As In the instant case the Appellant has not taken pleabefore either of the Courts. the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 2 Code of CivilProcedure, the Appellant was under an obligation to take a specific plea toshow that the suit was not maintainable which it failed to do so Appellantought to have taken a plea in the written statement that it was merely an”agent” of the Central Government, thus the suit against it was notmaintainable.·       Appellantmiserably failed to take the required pleadings for the purpose – Thus, in viewof the above, Appellant held to be as not entitled for exemption under Section3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 nor can it claimthe status of an “agent” of the Central Government. As the appellantwas not able to prove nor evidenced the maintainability of the suit. BriefFacts of the case:1)The suit premises belongs to the trust run by the RespondentsNareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors. Sh.

Damodar Dass Tapi Dass and Sh. DayaBhai Tapidas executed a lease deed dated 11.3.1893 in respect of the suitpremises admeasuring 12118 sq. yds. bearing plot No.

9 in Survey No. 73 ofLower Parel Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 011, in favourof a company named Hope Mills Limited for a period of 99 years commencing from22.10.1891.

The lease so executed was to expire on 21.10.1990.2) The original owners transferred and conveyed thesuit property in favour of one Harichand Roopchand and Ratan Bai on 22.2.1907.Thereafter, the suit property came to be vested in and owned by a publiccharitable trust, namely, Harichand Roopchand Charity Trust.(Trust)3)The leasehold rights in respect of suit propertystood transferred to Prospect Mills Ltd.

and, thereafter to Diamond Spinning& Weaving Company Pvt. Ltd. and, ultimately, vide a lease indenture dated25.10. 1926 to Toyo Poddar Cotton Mills Ltd. (Poddar Mills).4)The Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management)Act, 1983 (the Act 1983) was enacted by the Parliament in order to take overthe management of 13 textile undertakings including the Poddar Mills pendingtheir nationalisation. The lease granted in favour of Poddar Mills expired byefflux of time on 22.

10.1990. Thus, the said Poddar Mills continued as a tenantby holding over the suit premises. The Trust issued a legal notice dated2.12.1994 to the National Textile Corporation (The Appellant), terminating itstenancy qua the suit premises. The Parliament enacted the Textile Undertakings(Nationalisation) Act, 1995. The Trust filed an eviction suit against theAppellant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging HouseRates Control Act, 1947.

The Act 1947 stood repealed by the Maharashtra RentControl Act, 1999. The Respondent-Trust issued a notice for terminating thetenancy of the Appellant vide notice dated 26.9.2000. TheRespondents/Plaintiffs after withdrawal of the suit filed under the Act 1947,filed a fresh suit in the Small Causes Court at Bombay seeking eviction ofAppellant and for a decree of mesne profits on 20.

4.2001. The Appellant filedthe written statement denying the pleas taken by the Respondents/Plaintiffs.The suit was decreed in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs vide judgment anddecree dated 5.8.

2006 by which the Appellant was directed to hand over vacantand peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondents within fourmonths.5) Being aggrieved, the Appellant Preferred Appeal No.627 of 2006 to the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on13.11.2006 which was dismissed by the appellate court by affirming the judgmentand decree of the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2008. TheAppellant preferred civil revision before the High Court of Bombay, which hasbeen a dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.

8.2009. 6)The appellant stepped into shoes of centralgovernment merely as an agent, thus the central government is the tenant.

TheCentral Government continued to be a tenant in the suit premises and thus,would be protected in terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act 1999 being premiseslet out to the Government. The courts below failed to consider this vital legalissue. The suit filed by the Respondents was not maintainable.

The judgmentsand decrees of the courts below are liable to be set aside.  Inthe give case they are no such issues:Asstated in para 6 & 7 Ø No Reference had ever been made by the appellant to theeffect of provision of act 1995 before the trial court while filling the writtensubmissionsØ Neither any ISSUE has been framed, Nor ARGUMENTS have beenadvanced.Ø In regard with the same the Issue has not been worked upeither before the appellate court or revisional court.Ø In the above case an application has been filed tourge additional grounds regarding the application of the Act 1995 withoutseeking amendment to the pleadings.Ø Pleadings only further only if the case is stable and hassome proof or evidences supporting it, but in this case the appellant has not beenable to plea from his side nor is able to maintain his suit.Ø Pleadings are the most necessary part of a trial whichenables the court to decide.

Pleading enable the court to lessen the controversey