# Central Consumer Coop. Stores Ltd., Moradabad v. Vipin Kumar and another

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1243
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2003
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/central-consumer-coop-stores-ltd-moradabad-v-vipin-kumar-and-another-42386
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri B. Dayal
S.C.

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting rent & Eviction) Act 1972Section-2
(8)-petitioner
a
consumer
cooperative
society-not
owned
and
control by Government-can not be
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
excluded from application of povisions of
Section 21 of the Act.

Held: Para-8

In para 3 of objection filed by petitioner
before RCEO (Annexure-3 to the writ
petition) it has only said that petitioner
is a Central Cooperative Store, deals with
commercial transactions with consumers
and is a commercial establishment. It
nowhere
even
mention
that
it
is
controlled or owned by Government in
any manner. On the contrary, learned
counsel for the petitioner, during the
course
of
argument,
states
that
members of Cooperative Society are
individuals. In these circumstances, the
order impugned in the writ petition
cannot be faulted and it cannot be said
that
petitioner-Cooperative
Society
satisfies the requirement of exempted
categories mentioned in Section 21(8) of
Act, 1972.

## Text

3 All] Central Consumer Coop. Stores Ltd., Moradabad V. Vipin Kumar and another
1243
memory sometimes plays false, sense of
observation differs from person to person.

24. So far as the discrepancy pointed
out qua the P.W.2 having gone to his house
from the site of incident is contrary to what
was mentioned in the F.I.R. i.e. P.W.2 the
cousin of deceased had informed about the
incident and as was stated by P.W.1, in our
opinion in fact no contradiction at all.
Inasmuch as it is admitted that the informant
P.W.1 and eye witness P.W.2 are cousin
brothers and the accused has not pleaded that
they were living separately. The trial court
has rightly held that P.W.2 went to his house
to inform the incident to P.W.1.

25. We are also unable to accept the
contention of learned counsel for the
appellant that since Siyaram did not make
any attempt to save his cousin brother
Balkishan; Such conduct is unnatural and
therefore presence of Siyaram at the time of
incident becomes doubtful.

26. The Apex Court in the case of
Kathi Bharat Vajsur and Another Vs.
State of Gujrat 2012(5) SCC 724 has held
that it is not for the prosecution or Court to
go into question as to why an eye witnesses
reacted in particular manner or "unusual
manner". There is no fixed pattern of
reaction of an eye witnesses to a crime.
When faced with what is termed as "unusual
reaction" by an eye witnesses, court must
only examine whether prosecution story is in
any way affected with by such reaction and if
answer is in negative, then such reaction is
irrelevant.

27. Plea of non examination of the
witness of recovery memo of the weapon is
also of not much consequence as the
investigating officer had proved the seizure
memo and the recovery of the hasiya on the
pointing out by the accused. The testimony
of the investigating officer in respect of the
recovery and the seizure memo prepared
could not be dislodged. The last plea raised
about question being not put to the accused
about hasiya under section 313 Cr.P.C. is on
the face of it incorrect. The first question put
to the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C.
especifically refers to the use of hasiya as the
weapon to assault the deceased.

28. We find no good reason to interfere
with the findings of guilty recorded by the
Trial Court on the basis of material evidence
on record.

29. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
The judgment and order of the Trail Court is
affirmed. The appellant is already in jail, he
shall serve out the sentence also as ordered
by trial court.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2727 of 2003

Central Consumer Coop. Stores Ltd.,
Moradabad

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Vipin Kumar & another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B. Dayal
S.C.

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting rent & Eviction) Act 1972Section-2
(8)-petitioner
a
consumer
cooperative
society-not
owned
and
control by Government-can not be
1244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
excluded from application of povisions of
Section 21 of the Act.

Held: Para-8

In para 3 of objection filed by petitioner
before RCEO (Annexure-3 to the writ
petition) it has only said that petitioner
is a Central Cooperative Store, deals with
commercial transactions with consumers
and is a commercial establishment. It
nowhere
even
mention
that
it
is
controlled or owned by Government in
any manner. On the contrary, learned
counsel for the petitioner, during the
course
of
argument,
states
that
members of Cooperative Society are
individuals. In these circumstances, the
order impugned in the writ petition
cannot be faulted and it cannot be said
that
petitioner-Cooperative
Society
satisfies the requirement of exempted
categories mentioned in Section 21(8) of
Act, 1972.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed against
the order dated 06.07.2001 passed by Rent
Control and Eviction Officer, Moradabad
(hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO")
rejecting petitioner's objection that Section
21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972")
is not applicable to petitioner, who is a
Consumers Cooperative Society registered
under Cooperative Societies Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner is a Society dealing
with general public and, therefore, is
excluded from application of Section 21
sub-section (8) of Act, 1972.

3. The submission is thoroughly
misconceived and in fact no material and
pleading
is
available
on
record
to
demonstrate in any manner that Section
21(8) would not apply to petitioner-Society.

4. Section 21(8) of act, 1972 reads as
under:

"(8) Nothing in clause (a) of subsection (1) shall apply to a building let out
to the State Government or to a Local
Authority or to a public sector corporation
or to recognised educational' institution
unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied
that the landlord is a person to whom
clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation
to sub-section (1) is applicable:

Provided that in the case of such a
building the District Magistrate may, on the
application of the landlord, enhance the
monthly rent payable therefor to a sum
equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of
the market value of the building under
tenancy and the rent so enhanced shall be
payable from the commencement of the
month of tenancy following the date of the
application:

Provided
further
that a
similar
application for further enhancement may be
made after the expiration of a period of five
years from the date of the last order of
enhancement."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not dispute that terms "State
Government",
"Local
Authority"
and
"Recognized Educational Institution" would
not apply to petitioner's Cooperative
Society. He however submits that petitioner
would be governed by the term "Public
Sector Corporation". This submission is
also
misconceived.
3 All] M/S Sachan Nursing Home & another V. Regional P.F. Commissioner and another 1245

6.

The
term
"Public
Sector
Corporation" has been defined in Section
3(p) of Act, 1972 and reads as under:

"(p)
"Public
sector
corporation"
means any corporation owned or controlled
by the Government and includes any
company as defined in Section 3 of the
Companies Act, 1956, in which not less
than fifty percent of the paid up share
capital is held by the Government."

7. Admittedly petitioner's Cooperative
Society is not a Company registered under
Companies Act, 1956. In order to qualify to
be a Corporation owned or controlled by
Government there is not even a whisper in
the entire writ petition that petitioner's
Cooperative
Society
satisfy
the
said
requirement.

8. In para 3 of objection filed by
petitioner before RCEO (Annexure-3 to the
writ petition) it has only said that petitioner
is a Central Cooperative Store, deals with
commercial transactions with consumers
and is a commercial establishment. It
nowhere even mention that it is controlled
or owned by Government in any manner.
On the contrary, learned counsel for the
petitioner, during the course of argument,
states that members of Cooperative Society
are individuals. In these circumstances, the
order impugned in the writ petition cannot
be faulted and it cannot be said that
petitioner-Cooperative Society satisfies the
requirement
of
exempted
categories
mentioned in Section 21(8) of Act, 1972.

9. The writ petition is lacks merit. It is
accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.
10,000/-.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2922 of 2000

M/S Sachan Nursing Home & another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Regional P.F. Commissioner and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
SriD.P.Singh
Sri Siddharth Singh
Sri Ravindra Kumar Jaiswal
Sri Naveen Sinha
Sri Devesh Rathore

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.Chaturvedi
Sri Amit Daga
S.C.
Sri D.K. Pandey
Sri P.K. Pandey

Employees
Provident
Fund
Act
&
Miscellaneous
Provisions
Act-1952Section 2(f)-petitioner running nursing
home-liability of Provident Fund amount
fixed-with strength of 20 employees-out
of there 3 employees are partner of the
Firm-whether status of such partner
drawing salary became an employee or
as master?-held-even drawing salary
status partner will remain as owner and
not employee-hence in view of law laid
down by Apex Court in "Ramanuja" case
order fixing liability of contributory fundillegal, without jurisdiction.

Held: Para 18

In fact the facts of the case of Ramanuja
Match Industries are identical to the
facts of the present case, inasmuch as in
that case also the magical figure of 20 to