Ms. Arati Ghose and anr. Vs. Banwari Lal Jalan and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. m.y. eqbal, j.1. this revision application under section 14(8) of the bihar building (lease rent and eviction) control act, 1982, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.19985 passed by 1st addl. subordinate judge, deoghar in title suit no. 87 of 1983. by the said judgment, a decree for eviction has been passed under section 11(1)(e) of the said act of 1982 and the defendants-petitioners were directed to vacate the suit premises.2. the office has pointed out that the civil revision application is barred by limitation, inasmuch as it has been filed after expiry of 20 years from the date of decree of eviction passed by the subordinate judge.3. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.4. the case has a chequered history. the plaintiff-respondents filed the aforementioned title suit no. 87 of 1983 for a decree of eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit premises on the ground of expiry of period of lease and also on the ground of personal necessity. the plaintiffs case was that the building premises was let out to the defendants for a fixed period of 11 years commencing from 1st september, 1971 to 31st august, 1982 by means of a registered deed of lease dated 17.9.1971 on a monthly rent of rs. 55/-. after the expiry of the lease, notice for eviction was given and the suit was filed. the defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and the defence taken was that even after expiry of period of lease, rent was regularly remitted which was refused by the plaintiff. the defendants' further case was that the plaintiff was requested to extend the period of lease.5. the suit was eventually decreed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.9.1985. instead of challenging the judgment and decree by filing revision under section 14(8) of the bihar building (lease rent and eviction) control act, 1982, the defendants-petitioners preferred title appeal before the district judge, deoghar being title appeal no. 35 of 1985. the said appeal was eventually allowed by terms of judgment dated 23.4.1992 and the judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the trial court after framing issues as to in what capacity, the defendant is occupying the building premises. against the said judgment in appeal, the respondents-landlord preferred appeal before the high court being second appeal no. 207 of 1992. as such, the second appeal was finally decided in terms of judgment dated 17.12.1999 and the court of appeal below was directed to decide the maintainability of the appeal filed by the defendants-petitioners. after remand, title appeal no. 35 of 1985 was again beard by 3rd addl. district judge, deoghar, who in terms of judgment dated 29.4.2000 dismissed the appeal holding that the said appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court under section 11(1)(e) of the bihar building (lease rent and eviction) control act 1982 is not maintainable. the defendants-petitioners against the said judgment and decree passed by the appellate court preferred civil revision being civil revision no. 1237 of 2000 before the patna high court which was ultimately transferred to this court. when the civil revision was taken up on 9.11.2004, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the civil revision on the ground that the civil revision application was wrongly filed and the petitioners did not want to proceed with the same. hence, by order dated 9.11.2004, civil revision no. 1257 of 2000 was dismissed as withdrawn. the petitioners, thereafter, again filed the instant civil revision under section 14(8) of the said act against the original judgment and decree passed by the trial court in the year 1985.6. from the aforesaid facts, it is clear that although the original judgment and decree for eviction passed against the petitioners ought to have been challenged by filing revision under section 14(8) of the act of 1982, the petitioners wrongly filed appeal before the district judge, deoghar and the matter continued upto this court and finally, the petitioners accepted the mistake committed by them and preferred this civil revision after about 20 years. in this way, in spite of the decree for eviction passed in favour of respondent in the year 1985, the petitioners continued occupation of the premises for about 20 years. even assuming that the petitioners were entitled to renewal of lease for a further period of 11 years from 1982, even that period of 11 years has also expired, but the plaintiff-respondents could not get possession of the premises.7. considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, i am not inclined to admit this revision application against the judgment and decree after 20 years of the date of the decree. moreover, on merit also, i find that the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate judge, deoghar is in accordance with law. for the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this revision application which is, accordingly, dismissed.