# UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 14 S.C.R. 239
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-11-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011
- **Bench:** Kurian Joseph, A. M. Khanwilkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-v-nareshkumar-badrikumar-jagad-ors-32462
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

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1947 Act stood repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999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
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 239
239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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
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:
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
- 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)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,969 of 115,712. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39969 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
239
UNION OF INDIA
v.
NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.
(Review Petition (C) Diary No. 40966 of 2013)
IN
Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
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
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 239
239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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
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:
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
- 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
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.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 14 SCR 472
referred to
Para 1
[1971] Suppl. SCR 433
referred to
Para 26
[2007] 12 SCR 1050
referred to
Para 29
[2013] 2 SCR1045
referred to
Para 29
(1923) Vol. L (IA) 324
referred to
Para 29
(2007) 5 SCC 745
referred to
Para 44
[1992] 2 SCR 999
referred to
Para 46
[1990] 2 Suppl. SCR 251
referred to
Para 47
[2014] 12 SCR 875
referred to
Para 50
[1978] 3 SCR 334
referred to
Para 50
[1970] 1 SCR 388
referred to
Para 50
[2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 610
referred to
Para 52
[1989] 1Suppl. SCR 223
referred to
Para 52
1989] 2 Suppl. SCR 561
referred to
Para 52
[2012] 1 SCR1045
referred to
Para 53
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition (C)
Diary No. 40966 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2011 of the Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7448 of 2011.
With
M.A. No.2714 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.7448 of 2011 and
Contempt Petition (C) No.550 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No.7448 of 2011.
Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Shekhar Naphade, Maninder Singh, Mukul
Rohatgi, Ranjit Kumar, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advs., Sanjay Ghose, Kaustubh
Anshuraj, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Prateek Rusia, Ms. Ashita Chawla,
Sanjay Ghose, Kaustubh Anshuraj, Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Heena Chheda,
Gaurav Mehta, Rishabh Vora, Abhinav Agarwal, Anshuman Srivastava,
E. C. Agrawala, Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Anurag, Shreekant N. Terdal,
A. K. Kaul, Raj Bahadur, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi,
Hemant Arya, Chakitan Vikram Shekhar Papta, Ms. Sushma Verma,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
O R D E R
1. Union of India has filed this review petition seeking review of
the judgment and order passed by this Court on September 5, 2011 in
Civil Appeal No.7448 of 2011: National Textile Corporation Ltd. Versus
Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. 1 At the same time, the
appellant National Textile Corporation Ltd. (for short "NTC") has filed
an application for directions including for extension of time. Whereas,
respondent Nos.1 to 6 in the review petition (for short "respondents")
who were respondent Nos.1 to 6 in the aforementioned civil appeal,
have filed contempt petition for initiating appropriate action against the
appellant NTC. During the pendency of the review petition, an Ordinance
was promulgated titled as the Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws
(Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2014 which later on became
The Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Laws (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2014 (for short "Validation Act 2014"), as a result of
which the Union of India has filed an application for urging additional
grounds in the Review Petition. As the issues to be decided in these
proceedings are overlapping, we propose to deal with the same by this
common order.
1(2011) 12 SCC 695
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
2. Briefly stated, the property in question admeasuring 12118
square yards of land, bearing Plot No.9 in Survey No.73 of Lower Parel
Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai, originally belonged to
one Damodar Tapidas and Dayabhai Tapidas. They executed a lease
deed on 11th March, 1893 in favour of one Hope Mills Ltd. The demise
was for 99 years to expire on 21st October, 1990. A structure was erected
to house a cotton mill on the property. The original suit land owners sold
and conveyed the said land to one Harichand Rupchand by a sale deed
dated 22nd February, 1907. As per the Will of Harichand Rupchand, the
property vested in a public charitable trust by the name of Seth Harichand
Rupchand Charitable Trust (for short "the Trust"). The respondents
are the present trustees of the said Trust. The leasehold rights then
stood transferred from Hope Mills Ltd. to Prospect Mills Ltd. and
thereafter to Diamond Spinning and Weaving Co. Pvt. Ltd. By an
indenture of Lease dated 25th October, 1926, the property, namely, the
said land and structures thereon, were demised to Toyo Podar Cotton
Mills Ltd. (whose name was subsequently changed to Podar Mills Ltd.)
for the residue of the unexpired period of lease of 99 years commencing
from 22nd October, 1891, subject to the same terms and conditions as in
the original lease deed dated 11th March, 1893.
3. The Textile Undertakings (Taking over of Management) Act,
1983 (for short "1983 Act") was enacted by Parliament in order to take
over the management of 13 textile undertakings, including Podar Mills,
pending their nationalisation. The lease granted in favour of Podar Mills
Ltd. expired by efflux of time on 21st October, 1990. However, it
continued to occupy the suit property as a protected or statutory tenant
in terms of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control
Act, 1947 (for short "1947 Act"). The Trust issued a legal notice dated
2nd December, 1994 to the NTC terminating its tenancy qua the suit
property. The Parliament enacted the Textile Undertakings
(Nationalisation) Act, 1995 (for short "1995 Act"), which was deemed
to have come into force on 1st April, 1994.
4. On 18th July, 1995, the Trust (through respondents/trustees)
filed a suit for eviction being TER Suit 680/1568/1995, against Podar
Mills Ltd. (defendant No.1), NTC (defendant No.2) and Union of India
(defendant No.3) under the provisions of the 1947 Act. The reliefs
claimed in the said suit read thus:
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
"The Plaintiffs, therefore, pray that :-
(a) the Defendants No.2&3 be ordered and decree to quit, vacate
and hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the suit
Plot No.9, Cadastral Survey No.73 of Lower Parel Division
situated at Delisle Road, (Now known as N.M. Joshi Marg),
Bombay-400011 to the Plaintiffs;
(b) that the Defendants No.2 be ordered and decreed to pay the
mesne profit to the Plaintiffs from the date of the suit till the Decree
at the rate of Rs.128.75 per month, and after passing of the Decree
a direction be given to make inquiry in the matter and such other
rate 170, at the rate prevailing in the market be fixed as the mesne
profit payable till possession is handed over to the plaintiffs;
(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the
Defendants No.2 their servants, agents and representatives be
restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from
carrying out any further work of additions, alterations and/or
erections of a permanent nature or committing acts of waste into
or upon the suit lands viz., Plot No.9, Cadastral Survey No.73 of
Lower Parel Division situated at Delisle Road, (Now known as
N.M. Joshi Marg), Bombay-400011;
(d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit that the
defendants No.2 their servants, agents and representatives be
restrained by an order and a permanent injunction of this Hon'ble
Court from sub-letting and/or transferring their interest in the suit
premises or from creating a leave and licence in respect thereof
or from inducting a third party therein or from in any other manner
parting with the possession of the suit lands;
(e) that interim and ad-interim injunctions be granted in terms of
prayer (c) and (d) above during the pendency and final disposal
of this suit;
(f) that a fit and proper person be appointed as a Commissioner to
visit and inspect the suit premises being Plot No.9, Cadastral
Survey No.73 of Lower Parel Division situated at Delisle Road,
(Now known as N.M. Joshi Marg), Bombay-400011 and to make
and give his report regarding the present position and condition of
the suit lands and structures standing thereon;
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
(g) that the status quo in respect of the suit premises be maintained;
(h) for costs of this suit;
for such other and further order as may be just and proper and
necessary;"
This suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26th August, 2002.
5. The Trust (through respondents/trustees) filed another suit on
6th May, 1997, being RAD Suit No.955/97, against the same parties
(Union of India, Ministry of Textile (defendant No.1), NTC (defendant
No.2) and Podar Mills Ltd. (defendant No.3) for the following reliefs:
"THE PLAINTIFFS THEREFORE PRAY:-
A. It be declared that upon expiry of the Lease period by offlux
of time on 22.10.1990 the Defendants No.3 were holding over
premises and/or by operation of law become the statutory tenant
of the Plaintiffs in respect of suit property being Plot No.9,
Cadastral Survey No.73 Land admeasuring about 12,118 Sq. yards
with all buildings standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now
known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011.
B. that it be declared that on the appointed day i.e. 1st April, 1995.
The Defendants No.1, had acquired tenancy rights of the
Defendants No.3, and what has vested in Defendants No.2 is the
statutory tenancy of Defendants No.3, and as such Defendant
No.2, is the statutory tenant of the Plaintiffs, protected under
Bombay Rent Act, in respect of the suit premises being Plot No.9,
Cadastral Survey No.73, land admeasuring about 12,118 Sq. yards
with all buildings standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now
known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011.
C. that it be also declared that Defendants No.3, as the statutory
tenants of the Plaintiffs in respect of suit premises being Plot
No.9, Cadastral Survey No.73, land admeasuring about 12,118
Sq. yards with all buildings standing thereon, situated at Delisle
Road, now known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011, had no
right to claim and/or receive any compensation from the
Defendants No.1 and/or Defendant No.2, for the acquirement
and/or vesting of their statutory tenancy right, in the Defendants
No.1.
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
D. that the Defendants No.1 and 2 be directed to furnish the
detail bifurcation of the payment mentioned in Schedule I item
No.4 of the said Ordinance 6 of 1995.
E. that the Defendants No.1 be also restrained from making any
payment to the extent of Defendants No.3, allege lease right, title,
and interest in the suit property being Plot No.9, Cadastral Survey
No.73, land admeasuring about 12,118 sq. yards with all buildings
standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now known as N.M.
Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011, fixed by the Defendants No.1, and/
or No.2, as the Defendants No.1 had only acquired statutory
tenancy rights thereon.
F. that it be declared that the Defendants No.1 and 2 as the
statutory tenant of the Plaintiffs have no right to deal with transfer,
mortgage, sell and/or otherwise disposed off and/or induct any
third party in the suit promises, being Plot No.9, Cadastral Survey
No.73, land admeasuring about 12,118 sq. yards with all buildings
standing thereon, situated at Delisle Road, now known as N.M.
Joshi Marg, Bombay-400011.
G. Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (d) to (f) be
granted.
H. Costs and any other and such reliefs be granted as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper."
This suit was eventually withdrawn on 22nd December, 2004.
6. The 1947 Act stood repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Control
Act, 1999 (for short "1999 Act"). The Trust issued a notice for
terminating the tenancy of NTC vide notice dated 26th September, 2000.
The Trust (through respondents/ trustees) filed a fresh suit on 20th April,
2001 under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 only against the appellant
NTC, in the Small Causes Court at Bombay being TER 311/326/01 for
the following reliefs:
"The Plaintiffs, therefore, pray:
(a) that the Defendants be ordered and decree to vacate and
hand over to the Plaintiffs vacant peaceful possession of the suit
premises i.e. premises being land with the building admeasuring
about 12,118 sq. yards (equivalent to 10131.85 sq. mtrs.) bearing
Plot No.9, Cadastral Survey No.73 of Lower Parel Division
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
situated at Delisle Road, now known as N.M. Joshi Marg,
Chinchpokli, Bombay-400011;
(b) the Defendants be ordered and decree to pay to the Plaintiffs
mesne profits at the market rate and at some other rate fixed by
this Hon'ble Court for the use and occupation of the said land and
building having area of about 12,118 sq. yards (equivalent to
10131.85 sq. mtrs.) from November 2000 till the Defendants hand
over peaceful possession of the said premises viz. land with building
admeasuring about 12118 sq. yards, bearing Plot No.9, Cadastral
Survey No.73 of Lower Parel Division situated at Delisle Road,
now known as N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Bombay-400011 to
the Plaintiffs or at such amount as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper, after due inquiry under Order XX Rule 12 (c) of
the Civil Procedure Code;
(c) pending hearing and final disposal of the suit Defendants by
themselves, their agents, officers, servants be restrained by order
and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from parting with possession
or occupation of the suit premises under any assignment or part in
whatsoever manner of induct any third party therein;
(d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit some fit and
proper person be appointed Receiver with all power under Order
40 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to take charge of the
suit premises;
(e) pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit Defendants
be ordered to pay to the Plaintiffs damages/equally profit at Rs.7
lacs per month subject to adjustment of said amount when
damages/mesne profit is finally determined by the Hon'ble Court;
(f) interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (c), (d) and
(e) above;
(g) cost of this suit be provided for; and
(h) for such other and further reliefs as the nature and
circumstances of the case may required be granted."
7. The appellant NTC filed its written statement denying the pleas
taken by the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs
(Trust) vide judgment and decree dated 5th August, 2006 by virtue of
which the NTC was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession
of the suit premises to the plaintiffs within four months.
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
8. Being aggrieved, the appellant NTC preferred Appeal No. 627
of 2006 before the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay
on 13th November, 2006 which was dismissed by the appellate court by
affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court vide judgment and
decree dated 14th August, 2008. The appellant preferred civil revision
before the High Court of Bombay, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2009.
9. Being aggrieved, NTC assailed the aforementioned decision of
the High Court before this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition
converted to Civil Appeal No.7448 of 2011, which came to be dismissed
on 5th September, 2011. That decision is the subject matter of the review
petition filed on 20th December, 2013 by the Union of India as a third
party. The principal ground urged by the Union of India is that the right,
title and interest in the suit property had vested absolutely in the Central
Government by virtue of Section 3(1) of the 1995 Act. Nevertheless, in
the subject suit for possession filed by the Trust, Union of India had not
been impleaded as a party-defendant. Notably, the Trust had impleaded
Union of India as a party defendant in both the previous suits filed including
for eviction under the provisions of the 1947 Act. That pre-supposes
that the respondents were cognizant of the effect of the statutory vesting
of the tenancy absolutely in favour of the Central Government.
10. As aforementioned, during the pendency of the review petition,
the Validation Act 2014 came into effect, necessitating Union of India to
take out an application for urging additional grounds in the pending review
petition, in light of the provisions contained in the said enactment.
11. This Court while dismissing the appeal preferred by NTC,
gave time to vacate upto 31st December, 2013 subject to filing of usual
undertaking within four weeks, to hand over peaceful and vacant
possession to the Trust. The General Manager of NTC filed an affidavit
of undertaking on behalf of NTC on 3rd October, 2011, with the approval
of the Union of India, in compliance of the order dated 5th September,
2011 passed by this Court.
12. Before the expiry of the time to vacate, NTC filed an application
for extension of time to hand over possession of the suit premises on
23rd December, 2013, for reasons stated in the application. This Court
acceded to that request vide order dated 31st January, 2014 and extended
the time to vacate until 30th June, 2014. NTC filed a fresh undertaking
on 24th March, 2014, with the approval of the Union of India, in
compliance of the order dated 31st January, 2014.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
13. NTC has filed a fresh application on 27th June, 2014 before the
expiry of the time to vacate, being I.A. No.6 of 2014 for directions and
praying for the following reliefs:
"PRAYERS:
(a) To grant time to the Applicants herein to comply with all the
laws, rules, regulations as required for sub-division of the said
land so that the land of the Respondent as well as Applicant could
be demarcated and sub-divided;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the Order
dated 5.8.2006 of the Hon'ble Small Causes Court as regards the
handling over of the building structure standing on the said suit
land does not imply that the buildings are to be handed over free
of cost or that the Respondent Trust is the owner therein;
(c) That in any event this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vary
the said order of the Small Cases Court dated 05.8.2006 in-asmuch-as it directs handing over of building in-as-much-as the said
order is impossible of compliance since in the process of subdivision, the structures on the land of the Respondent as also the
land of the Applicant will stand demolished;
(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
Respondent Trust to pay to the Applicants the salvage value at
the market rate/value of the demolished structure standing on the
lease hold land to be handed over to the Respondent.
(e) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit and also
issue a direction permitting the Applicant to hand over juridical
possession to the Respondent Trust without handling over the
physical possession until such time as the land has been demarcated
and the structure demolished.
(f) Pass any such other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper."
14. The respondents have filed a contempt petition on 20th
November, 2014 including for enforcement of the directions given to
NTC to vacate the suit premises and to hand over peaceful and vacant
possession thereof to them. They allege that it is a case of willful
disobedience and more particularly, breach of the undertaking given to
this Court by the party concerned warranting appropriate action against
NTC and its officials.
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
15. The respondents would contend that Union of India has no
locus to file a review petition against the judgment of this Court dated 5th
September, 2011. It is then contended that the grounds urged by the
Union of India in the review petition regarding the purport of the 1995
Act were specifically raised and have been answered appropriately.
Secondly, the fact now asserted by the Union of India by way of review
petition and which contention is supported by NTC, namely, that the
tenancy rights in the suit property of the erstwhile Podar Mills Ltd. vested
absolutely in the Union of India after the taking over of the management
of the subject Textile Undertaking by operation of the provisions of the
1983 Act and followed by acquisition by virtue of the 1995 Act, was not
specifically raised in the written statement filed by NTC. It is too late in
the day to permit Union of India or NTC to raise that plea. It is not open
for the review court to travel beyond the pleadings in the written statement
filed by NTC. No evidence can be led either by Union of India or NTC
in respect of any factual matter which has not been pleaded in the written
statement. The plea taken by NTC in the written statement has been
duly considered right up to this Court, which culminated into the decision
of this Court. In fact, the review petition by Union of India is a subterfuge
so as to circumvent the decree of possession passed against NTC in
respect of the suit premises, and moreso, in defiance of the undertaking
already given to this Court, with the approval of the Union of India, to
hand over peaceful and vacant possession. According to the respondents,
the review petition by Union of India as well as the application for
extension of time by NTC are nothing but an abuse of the process of the
Court and must be dismissed. The respondents have also invited our
attention to the interim orders passed by this Court in the present
proceedings and would contend that the Commission's Report exposes
the stand taken by NTC that the suit premises are still being used for its
activities.
16. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the review petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Naphade &
Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for NTC and Mr.
Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Ranjit Kumar & Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents.
17. From the judgment under review, it is seen that the main ground
urged by Union of India in the review petition was pressed into service
by NTC. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the argument canvassed on
behalf of NTC has been noted as under:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
251
"7. Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General,
appearing for the appellant has submitted that the judgments and
decrees of the courts below have to be set aside as none of the
courts below has taken into consideration the effect of the
provisions of the 1995 Act by virtue of which the textile undertaking
stood absolutely vested in the Central Government and further
vested in the appellant. As on the expiry of the lease of 99 years
on 22-10-1990, the 1947 Act was in force, the then tenant, Podar
Mills became the statutory tenant. Such tenancy rights stood
vested absolutely in the Central Government on the
commencement of the 1995 Act by operation of law. The
appellant stepped in the shoes of the Central Government
merely as an agent, thus, the Central Government remained
the tenant. The Central Government continued to be a
tenant in the suit premises and thus, would be protected in
terms of Section 3(1)(a) of the 1999 Act being premises let
out to the Government. The courts below failed to consider
this vital legal issue. The suit filed by the respondents was not
maintainable. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are
liable to be set aside."
(emphasis supplied)
18. This Court, after considering the rival submissions, held that
NTC had not specifically pleaded in the written statement that the
tenancy stood vested absolutely in the Central Government and resultantly,
no issue in that behalf was framed nor any argument was advanced
before the Trial Court, Appellate Court or the Revisional Court. That
contention was taken for the first time in the appeal before the Supreme
Court by way of an application to urge additional grounds regarding the
application of the 1995 Act, without seeking amendment to the pleadings
(written statement). The Court then considered the question as to whether
the Government is a tenant or whether NTC can be termed as
"Government" or "Government Department" or "Agent" of the Central
Government in the context of the 1999 Act. The Court, in unambiguous
terms held that NTC could neither be treated as "Government" or
"Government Department" nor could it be treated as an "Agent" of the
Central Government. Whereas, NTC was controlled by the provisions
of the 1995 Act and not by the Central Government. The Court also
considered the purport of the expression "vesting" and noted that the
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Trust had rented out the suit premises to Podar Mills and what had
vested was that right, title and interest of the Podar Mills and nothing
else. It will be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment
under review, which rejects the claim of NTC in the following words:
"42. It is not permissible for the appellant to canvass that the
Central Government has any concern so far as the tenancy rights
are concerned. Right vested in the Central Government stood
transferred and vested in the appellant. Both are separate legal
entities and are not synonymous. The appellant being neither the
Government nor the government department cannot agitate that
as it has been substituted in place of the Central Government, and
acts merely as an agent of the Central Government, thus protection
of the 1999 Act is available to it. The appellant cannot be permitted
to say that though all the rights vested in it but it merely remained
the agent of the Central Government. Acceptance of such a
submission would require interpreting the expression "vesting" as
holding on behalf of some other person. Such a meaning cannot
be given to the expression "vesting".
43. It is a settled legal proposition that an agent cannot be sued
where the principal is known. In the instant case, the appellant
has not taken the plea before either of the courts below. In view
of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 2 CPC, the appellant was under
an obligation to take a specific plea to show that the suit was not
maintainable which it failed to do so. The vague plea to the extent
that the suit was bad for non-joinder and, thus, was not
maintainable, did not meet the requirement of law. The appellant
ought 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 not maintainable. More so, whether A is an agent of B is a
question of fact and has to be properly pleaded and proved by
adducing evidence. The appellant miserably failed to take the
required pleadings for the purpose."
19. Reverting to the question of whether Union of India has locus
to file the review petition, we must immediately advert to Section 114 of
the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") which, inter alia, postulates that
"any person considering himself aggrieved" would have locus to file a
review petition. Order XLVII of CPC restates the position that any person
considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. Be that as it
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
253
may, the Supreme Court exercises review jurisdiction by virtue of Article
137 of the Constitution which predicates that the Supreme Court shall
have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
Besides, the Supreme Court has framed Rules to govern review petitions.
Notably, neither Order XLVII of CPC nor Order XLVII of the Supreme
Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the
judgment under review. Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating
that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an
aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition.
The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment
and order passed by this Court in some respect.
20. The next question is whether Union of India can be considered
as an aggrieved person so as to pursue the remedy of review petition. It
is indisputable that the management of Podar Mills-Textile Undertaking
was taken over by the Central Government after the commencement of
the 1983 Act. The scope of management would obviously include
possession and permissible use of the suit property of the Textile
Undertaking so taken over. In due course, the 1995 Act came into force.
As a consequence of Section 3 of this Act, the right, title and interest of
the owners of the subject Textile Undertaking (Podar Mills Ltd.) including
the statutory tenancy rights in relation to the suit property stood transferred
to and vested absolutely in the Central Government. By the same
provision, vide sub-section (2) thereof, the Textile Undertaking which
stood vested in the Central Government immediately thereafter stood
transferred to and vested in the National Textile Corporation. That
included subsisting statutory tenancy rights in respect of the suit property
enjoyed by the concerned Textile Undertaking. However, Section 3
stands amended by virtue of the 2014 Act. That amendment by a legal
fiction is deemed to have been inserted into the 1995 Act w.e.f. 1st January,
1994. The purport of the amended sub-sections (3) and (4), inserted in
section 3 is that the leasehold rights of the Textile Undertaking would
continue to remain vested in the Central Government and no Court could
exercise jurisdiction to order divestment from the NTC of the property
vested in it by the Central Government. In addition, the Amendment Act
of 2014 has introduced Section 39 in the 1995 Act, titled as 'Validation'.
We shall dilate on the efficacy of these provisions a little later.
21. Suffice it to observe that since Union of India is asseverating
that the suit property had vested absolutely in the Central Government
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
and continues to so vest in it by virtue of a legal fiction in the Validation
Act 2014, would be justified in contending that it is a person aggrieved
and has locus to point out that the decree for possession of the suit
premises against NTC could not have been passed and in any case, the
same could not be enforced in law. It is an inexecutable decree and
including the undertaking given by NTC, assuming that the concerned
court had jurisdiction to pass such a decree.
22. Having said this, we may now turn to the question of scope of
review jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court in civil proceedings.
The power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by this
Court flows from Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which reads
thus:
"137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court
Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any
rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have
power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by
it."
23. The power to frame rules is posited in Article 145 of the
Constitution. As per Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules
framed under Article 145, the Court can review its judgment or order on
the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. It will be,
therefore, apposite to advert to Rule 1 of Order XLVII of CPC. The
same reads thus:
"ORDER XLVII
REVIEW
1. Application for review of judgement.-
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
 (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from no appeal has been preferred,
 (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
 (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
255
his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when
the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of
judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the
order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgement notwithstanding the pendency of
an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such
appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when,
being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case
on which he applies for the review."
24. The grounds for review are specified in clause (1) noted above.
The factual scenario in the present case is certainly not ascribable to
discovery of new or important matters or evidence which was "available
or existing" at the time of the decree but could not be produced despite
exercise of due diligence. In the present case, the asseveration of the
review petitioner is about the mistake or error apparent on the face of
the record committed by the Court and more particularly founded on the
effect of the subsequent enactment of Validation Act 2014 which
completely changes the status of the parties, namely, Union of India and
NTC qua the suit property and bars the enforcement of any decree and
including the undertaking given to the Court by NTC.
25. Ordinarily, enactment of a subsequent legislation by itself
cannot be the basis to review the judgment already rendered by the
Court. But the argument of the review petitioner proceeds on the premise
that the subsequent legislation has completely altered the status of the
parties retrospectively qua the suit property with effect from 1st April,
1994 by a legal fiction, as a result of which the cause of action against
NTC as referred to in the subject suit had become non-existent; and
including any decree or order passed against NTC or for that matter, an
undertaking filed by NTC in any court or tribunal or authority has been
rendered unenforceable by operation of law and cannot be continued or
taken forward. In other words, even if a valid decree has been passed
against NTC, the same had become inexecutable by operation of law.
UNION OF INDIA v. NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
26. This Court in Raja Shatrunji Vs. Mohammad Azmal Azim
Khan and Ors.2 had an occasion to consider the impact of Amendment
Act having retrospective effect on the decree already passed. The
discussion in paragraphs 11 to 13 of this decision is quite instructive. It
accepts the argument that the Court must give full effect to the statutory
fiction, which should be carried to its logical conclusion - no matter in
review jurisdiction. The said paragraphs read thus:
"11. The Amendment Act therefore provided that the
amendment took effect as if the Amendment Act had been
in force on all material dates. The effect of such a deeming
clause was stated by this Court in State of Bombay v.