Ranjeet Kumar, S. G., Sidharth Luthra, B. Sunita Rao, Anurag for & Ors. v. DURGA 171 TRADING CO. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA & Ors.

Judgment

3 S.C.R. 162 A NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MN) LTD. v . • M/S DURGA TRADING CO. AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2788 of 2005) FEBRUARY 17, 2015 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND PRAFULLA C.PANT, JJ.] B c D Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971: ss. 4 and 7 - Agreement to sell entered into between respondent no. 1 and erstwhile owner of Textile Undertaking in 1975 -Agreement contained clauses which mandated the execution of registered sale-deed or conveyance deed within three years - However, the same In 1983, management of textile was never done - undertaking of erstwhile owner taken over by the central E Government under the 1983 Act and thereafter vested in Central Government under the 1995 Act - Subject premises declared Public Premises and notices issued to respondent no. 1 to evict the premises - Challenge against - Held: The subject land got vested with the Government and was F deemed to have been transferred in favour of the appellant in view of provisions of 1983 Act and 1995 Act- In view of such vesting, respondent no. 1 cannot claim to be an authorized occupant within the meaning of s.2(g) of the 1971 Act- Textile Undertakings (Nationalization) Act, 1995 - s.3 - Textile Undertakings (taking over of Management) Act, 1983. G Allowing the appeal, the Court • 162 H • NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (MN) LTD. v. DURGA 163 TRADING CO. HELD: 1. Section 3(1) of the Textile Undertakings A (Nationalization) Act, 1995 provides that on the appointed date, the right, title and interest of the owner in relation to every textile undertaking shall stand transferred to and shall vest absolutely in the Central Government Sub-section.(2) thereof provides that every B textile undertaking which stands vested in the Central Government by virtue of sub-section (1) shall immediately after it has so vested, stand transferred to and vested in the appellant-Corporation. Liability if any of the owner of a textile undertaking i.e. SSML of any C period prior to the appointed day is liability of such owner (SSML) and can be enforceable against him and not against the Central Government or the appellant in view of Section 5(1) of 1995 Act. Therefore respondent n9.1 cannot derive any advantage against the Central D Government or the appellant on the ground of pendency of a suit against the owner (SSML). [Paras 7, 14 and 15] [172-G-H; 173-A; 179-A, Band DJ

#2. The agreement to sell relied upon by respondent E no.1 itself contained clauses which mandated the execution of registered sale-deed or conveyance deed within three years. However, the same was never done. Even if it is admitted that respondent no.1 has acted on the agreement to sell and has paid the entire F consideration, it cannot be a ground to hold that respondent no.1 is authorized occupant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. [Paras 13, 17] [177-B, 181-G] ' G,