IN Appellant held to be as not entitled for





 Civil Appeal
No. 7448 of 2011

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

 Decided On:

 Appellants: The National Textile Corporation Ltd.


 Respondent: Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and


















succeeding pages contain a case analysis on the supreme court case, The
National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors

FIRAC method of briefing shall be used in the research work, and hence deals
with the headings of facts, issues, rule, analysis/application and conclusion.



of the case:


In this case the
national textile ltd vs naresh Kumar badri Kumar jagad and ors have mentioned
about vacant premises belongs to trust of the respondent.

The appellant Maintainability
of Suit is questioned. As In the instant case the Appellant has not taken plea
before either of the Courts. the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 2 Code of Civil
Procedure, 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 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

miserably failed to take the required pleadings for the purpose – Thus, in view
of the above, Appellant held to be as not entitled for exemption under Section
3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 nor can it claim
the status of an “agent” of the Central Government. As the appellant
was not able to prove nor evidenced the maintainability of the suit.


Facts of the case:

1)The suit premises belongs to the trust run by the Respondents
Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors. Sh. Damodar Dass Tapi Dass and Sh. Daya
Bhai Tapidas executed a lease deed dated 11.3.1893 in respect of the suit
premises admeasuring 12118 sq. yds. bearing plot No. 9 in Survey No. 73 of
Lower Parel Division, N.M. Joshi Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai-400 011, in favour
of a company named Hope Mills Limited for a period of 99 years commencing from
22.10.1891. The lease so executed was to expire on 21.10.1990.

2) The original owners transferred and conveyed the
suit 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 public
charitable trust, namely, Harichand Roopchand Charity Trust.(Trust)

3)The leasehold rights in respect of suit property
stood transferred to Prospect Mills Ltd. and, thereafter to Diamond Spinning
& Weaving Company Pvt. Ltd. and, ultimately, vide a lease indenture dated
25.10. 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 over
the management of 13 textile undertakings including the Poddar Mills pending
their nationalisation. The lease granted in favour of Poddar Mills expired by
efflux of time on 22.10.1990. Thus, the said Poddar Mills continued as a tenant
by holding over the suit premises. The Trust issued a legal notice dated
2.12.1994 to the National Textile Corporation (The Appellant), terminating its
tenancy qua the suit premises. The Parliament enacted the Textile Undertakings
(Nationalisation) Act, 1995. The Trust filed an eviction suit against the
Appellant under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 1947. The Act 1947 stood repealed by the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999. The Respondent-Trust issued a notice for terminating the
tenancy of the Appellant vide notice dated 26.9.2000. The
Respondents/Plaintiffs after withdrawal of the suit filed under the Act 1947,
filed a fresh suit in the Small Causes Court at Bombay seeking eviction of
Appellant and for a decree of mesne profits on 20.4.2001. The Appellant filed
the written statement denying the pleas taken by the Respondents/Plaintiffs.
The suit was decreed in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs vide judgment and
decree dated 5.8.2006 by which the Appellant was directed to hand over vacant
and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the Respondents within four

5) Being aggrieved, the Appellant Preferred Appeal No.
627 of 2006 to the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay on
13.11.2006 which was dismissed by the appellate court by affirming the judgment
and decree of the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2008. The
Appellant preferred civil revision before the High Court of Bombay, which has
been a dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2009.

6)The appellant stepped into shoes of central
government merely as an agent, thus the central government is 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 Act 1999 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.



the give case they are no such issues:

stated in para 6 & 7

Ø No Reference had ever been made by the appellant to the
effect of provision of act 1995 before the trial court while filling the written

Ø Neither any ISSUE has been framed, Nor ARGUMENTS have been

Ø In regard with the same the Issue has not been worked up
either before the appellate court or revisional court.

Ø In the above case an application has been filed to
urge additional grounds regarding the application of the Act 1995 without
seeking amendment to the pleadings.

Ø Pleadings only further only if the case is stable and has
some proof or evidences supporting it, but in this case the appellant has not been
able to plea from his side nor is able to maintain his suit.

Ø Pleadings are the most necessary part of a trial which
enables the court to decide. Pleading enable the court to lessen the controversey