Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2014 – ss.5,6,7,8 – Effect of – Original suit land owners executed lease deed for 99 years which was to expire on 21.10.1990 – A structure was erected to house a cotton mill on the property – Thereafter, property was vested in a public charitable trust and the respondents are the present trustees of the said Trust – Suit land was leased to ‘P’ Mills for the residue of the unexpired period of lease – Textile Undertakings Act, 1983 was enacted to take over the management of textile undertakings including ‘P’ Mills, pending their nationalization – Lease granted in favour of ‘P’ Mills expired by efflux of time, however, it continued to occupy the suit property as a protected or statutory tenant in terms of Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Trust issued a legal notice to appellant-National Textile Corporation Ltd. (NTC) terminating its tenancy qua the suit property – Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 came into force on 01.04.1994 – The 1947 Act stood repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Trust filed a suit under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only against the appellant-NTC, which was decreed in favour of Trust and appellant-NTC was directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises – Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court – Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court – Review Petition by Union of India – During the pendency of review petition, the Validation Act 2014 came into effect – Review Petitioner contended that subsequent legislation has completely altered the status of the parties retrospectively qua the suit property with effect from 01.04.1994 by legal fiction, as a result of which the cause of action against NTC as referred to in the A subject suit had become non-existent – Held: S.3 of the 1995 Act stands amended by virtue of the 2014 Act – Now, as per the amended s.3 of the 1995 Act w.e.f. 01.04.1994, by operation of law the statutory or protected tenancy rights of ‘P’ Mills in respect of the suit property stood transferred to and vested in the Central Government and it continues to so vest in it and that the decree against NTC including the undertaking given by NTC has been rendered unenforceable by a legal fiction – As a result, the Trust being the landlord is obliged to take recourse to remedy against the Central Government (Union of India) to get back possession of the suit property, as per the dispensation specified in the concerned C Rent Legislation – Textile Undertakings Act, 1983 – Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Textile Undertaking (Nationalisation) Act, 1995 – s.3 – Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.111. Review – Remedy of – Third party to the proceeding – Held: D s.114 and Or.XLVII of CPC states that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition – Further, neither Or.XLVII of CPC nor Or.XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review – Therefore, even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition E – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114 and Or.XLVII – Supreme Court Rules – Or.XLVII.
National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 695 : [2012]
14 SCR 472 ; Raja Shatrunji v. Mohammad Azmal Azim Khan and Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 200 : [1971] Suppl. SCR
433 ; S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464 : [2007] 12 SCR 1050 Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 : [2013] 2 SCR 1045 ; Champsey Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Limited (1923) Vol. L (IA) 324 ; B. Arvind Kumar v. Govt. of India and Others (2007) 5 SCC 745 ; Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (1992) 3 SCC 1 : [1992] 2 SCR
999 ; Bhoolchand and Another v. Kay Pee Cee
Investments and Another (1991) 1 SCC 343 : [1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 251 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala and Another (2014) 12 SCC 696 : [2014] 12 SCR 875 ; Madan Mohan Pathak and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (1978) 2 SCC 50 : [1978] 3 SCR 334 ; Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Broach Borough Municipality and Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 283 : [1970] 1 SCR 388 ; T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors.(Paragraph Nos. 9 to 22.) (2001) 1 SCC
516 : [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 610 ; Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and Ors. (Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6) (1989) Supp. (2) SCC 418 : [1989] Suppl. SCR 223 ; Noorali Babul Thanewala v. K.M.M. Shetty and Ors. (1990) 1 SCC 259 : [1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 561 ; Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors.v. Living Media India Ltd. and Ors.(2012) 3 SCC 563 : [2012] 1 SCR1045 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.