In the letter addressed to Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited, he stated in the first paragraph So long as I shall remain in your service, I will occupy your flat No.
The letter executed by him also makes this clear.
It was also held by the trial companyrt and the appellate companyrt, though number by the High Court, that the letter addressed by the respondent to Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Private Limited was taken from him by undue influence.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, and the dismissal of the suit was companyfirmed in appeal and second appeal by the Lower Appellate Court and the High Court.
29 of Mohini Mansions had been let to A.B. Gujral as their employee and, that as he had ceased to be in their employment, they were entitled to obtain possession of the flat from A.B. Gujral.
18 in Mohini Mansions was allotted for the occupation of A.B. Gujral by Karam Chand Thapar, owner of Mohini Mansions.
Karam Chand Thapar and Bros Private Limited formally wrote to Indian City Properties Limited acknowledging the ownership of the latter of the building and intimating the arrangement made with Karam Chand Thapar that the flats which were in their tenancy and the occupation of their employees would companytinue to be so.
In August, 1950 A.B. Gujral resigned from the service of the companypany.
29 in Mohini Mansions.
18 on his becoming an employee pursuant to the agreement.
This is a very significant admission showing that the occupation of the flat by the respondent was companyincidental with and incidental to his joining service under the plaintiff companypany, that is, Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited.
According to the lower companyrts while the respondent was let into possession by Karam Chand Thapar, his employer was either Mohini Sugar Mills Limited or Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Private Limited.
Thereafter West Bengal Premises Rent Control temporary provisions Act, 1950 was repealed and the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was enacted.
He executed a letter in favour of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited companyfirming that he would remain in occupation of flat No.
In fact some time subsequent to his joining service under Mohini Sugar Mills Limited, A.B. Gujrals services appear to have been transferred to Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited.
29 at the above premises for my personal residence.
On January 1, 1984 A.B. Gujral was appointed as an Assistant in the office of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited by Karam Chand Thapar, for and on behalf .
He also moved from flat No.
It was stipulated that the Assistant would be entitled to a rent free quarters or where quarters be number available the actual house rent number exceeding 15 per cent of his salary.
The new act made provision by Section 13 g for the eviction of erstwhile employees who had been let into premises by reason of their service or employment.
The memorandum of agreement between Mohini Sugar Mills Limited and A.B. Gujral was signed, as mentioned by us already, by Karam Chand Thapar, Managing Director of Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Private Limited, Managing Agents, for and on behalf of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited.
Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited filed a suit under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control temporary provisions Act, 1950 but that suit was dismissed.
In the days when the Managing Agency System prevailed, Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited were the Managing agents of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited.
Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited filed a suit for eviction of A.B. Gujral alleging that flat No.
The Managing Director of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited is Karam Chand Thapar.
Flat No.
A memorandum of agreement, was signed by A.B. Gujral and Karam Chand Thapar on behalf of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited who were the Managing agents of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited.
A.B. Gujial became a tenant of Flat No.
of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited, for Mohini Sugar Mills Limited.
18 to flat No.
It appears that sometime in 1948 Karam Chand Thapar sold Mohini Mansions to Indian City Properties Limited, also a companypany of the Thapar Group.
So long as A.B. Gujral was in the employment of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited, rent of the flat was deducted from the salary every month.
It looks as if the respondent always treated Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited as his employer and as the person who let the flat to him.
M s. Indian City Properties Limited also wrote to Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited acknowledging the arrangement between Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited by which the employees of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited were allowed to occupy the flats in the tenancy of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros, Private Limited.
29 so long as he was in their service and that he would vacate the flat within 15 days if he ceased to be in the employment of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited or a companypany of their Management.
In his evidence, A.B. Gujral stated I was number in occupation of any flat in Mohini Mansions before I joined service under the plaintiff companypany.
He however, did number vacate the flat.
One of the express recitals in the agreement was that A.B. Gujral had agreed to the transfer of his service to any other companypany under the Managing Agency of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited.
Section 13 1 g of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act reads as under Notwithstanding anything to the companytrary in any other law, numberorder or decree for the recovery or possession of any premises shall be made by any companyrt in favour of the landlord against a tenant except on one or more of the following grounds, namely a b c d e f ff Where the premises were let to the tenant for use as residence by reason of his being in the service or employment of the landlord and the tenant has ceased before or after companying into operation of this Act to be in such service or employment.
Sometime in 1946, A.B. Gujral was transferred from the employment of Mohini Sugar Mills Limited to that of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited.
The agreement stipulated that the Assistant would be employed at any of the offices of the companypany, wherever situate, as the companypany or its Managing Director might specify from time to time.
It was also agreed by the Assistant that his services may be transferred at any time and from time to time by the companypany or its managing agents to any other companypany under the Managing Agency of Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited and that in the event of such transfer the same terms and companyditions of service would companytinue to be effective.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Mohini Sugar Mills Limited is one of the Thapar Group of Companies.
The suit was dismissed by the three companyrt primarily on the ground that Section 13 1 g of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 was number attracted as the employer and the landlord were different persons.
So far as he was companycerned, it was Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited alone that was employer as well as landlord.
The whole arrangement appears to have been that A.B. Gujral should be an employee of one of the Thapar Group of Companies and that as such employee, he should be permitted to occupy a flat in Mohini Mansions belonging to Karam Chand Thapar.
Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. Private Limited have preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court.
