1000/ per month during the pendency of suit till possession is taken of the suit house from the defendants.
1000/ per month from the defendants from 25.9.1998 till the date of filing the suit and Rs.
He was working in the appellants industrial unit.
Dharam Dev Yadav did number vacate the quarter after expiry of six months and companytinued to remain in its occupation.
It was alleged that the appellant being a Company had numberright to file a suit unless resolution had been passed authorizing the plaintiff Company to file the suit against the respondents.
Felt aggrieved, the defendants filed revision before the High Court under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.
It was alleged that the appellant number being the owner of the quarter in question had numberright to file a civil suit seeking respondents eviction from the quarter.
Having heard learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside the impugned order and restore the judgment decree of the Trial Court, which rightly decreed appellants suit against the respondents.
The Trial Court, vide judgment decree dated 30.07.2012 decreed the appellants suit and passed eviction decree against the respondents.
It was alleged that the respondents are, therefore, in illegal occupation of the quarter in question as trespasser and hence were liable to be evicted from the said quarter.
It was alleged that the allotment period having companye to an end on the date of retirement of Dharam Dev Yadav on 12.01.1992 and the same having been extended for six months till 30.06.1992, he was under legal as well as companytractual obligation to vacate the quarter on and after 30.06.1992.
The respondents filed their written statement and denied the claim made by the appellant.
The respondents also alleged that the suit was barred by virtue of Section 13 of the Act read with Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act and hence it was liable to be dismissed as being barred.
Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff filed present appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Parties adduced evidence.
Respondent No.1s husband Dharam Dev Yadav was in the employment of the appellant as industrial worker.
The Trial Court framed 9 issues.
Dharam Dev Yadav retired from the appellants service on 12.01.1992.
The suit was for respondents eviction from the quarter in question and also for claiming damages for its use and occupation payable from 30.06.1992.
The High Court then proceeded to give directions to the Principal Secretary, Labour to take action against the erring officials who failed to take any action to obtain possession of the quarters from illegal occupants.
The respondents then alleged that they were in occupation of the suit house as tenant.
On 11.05.1971, he applied to the appellant for allotment of one quarter for his use and occupation.
1 herein who also companytinued to remain in the occupation of the quarter along with her family members.
Heard Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Jay Savla, learned companynsel for respondent No.2.
He, however, made request to the appellant vide his letter dated 11.01.92 to allow him to remain in occupation of the quarter for a period of six months.
It was held that, i the suit is maintainable ii there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and Dharam Dev Yadav iii the monthly rent of suit house is Rs 34/ iv the suit is number barred by Section 13 of the Act read with Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act v the District Judge has jurisdiction to try the suit vi the plaintiff is authorized and hence companypetent to file the civil suit vii Dharam Dev Yadav was under companytractual and legal obligation to vacate the suit house numbersooner he retired from service viii the tenancy in respect of the quarter came to end on termination of the employment of Dharam Dev ix defendant No.
In the meantime, he died leaving behind his wife respondent No.
The appellant acceded to his request and accordingly granted him time to vacate the quarter on or before 30.06.1992 on humanitarian ground.
The High Court held that, i the civil suit at the instance of the plaintiff appellant is number maintainable for want of plaintiffs appellants locus ii the suit, however, is number barred by Section 13 of the Act iii such suit, however, companyld be filed by the State Government or and Labour Commissioner and iv there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the original allottee.
The appellant, therefore, filed a civil suit in the year 2001 being C.C. No 39/2001 before the Additional District Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad against the respondents.
By impugned order, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the judgment decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appellants suit.
On allotment, Dharam Dev Yadav executed a declaration as required under the Act Rule.
The allotment order issued by the State, inter alia, provided that, 1 monthly rent of each quarter would be Rs.
The appellant is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act.
59 in the industrial companyony at Ghaziabad to Dharam Dev Yadav.
1 being wife of the original allottee had numberright to occupy the quarter in question because she was neither a workman and number the allottee and x the plaintiff was entitled to claim Rs.
59 at Industrial Labour Colony, Ghaziabad to the appellant vide order dated 29.04.1971 so as to enable the appellant to allot these houses quarters to the workers for their use and occupation while they were in the appellants employment.
5,6,7,8,11 and 12 in Block No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. L.P. c No.
The appellant has one industrial unit at Industrial Area, Meerut Road in Ghaziabad UP .
It was alleged that the respondents, who claim through Dharam Dev Yadav had numberindependent right to remain in occupation of the quarter because they were neither in the appellants employment and number any allotment order had been issued by the appellant or and the State in their favour in relation to quarter No.
The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
11472 of 2013 Leave granted.
