B H P Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Introduction : Sodam Kohinoor was married to Sodam Prasadarao and has three minor children. The husband is an employee of M/s. Bharat Heavy Plates and Vessels Limited, Visakhapatnam, which is a wholly Government owned and controlled company and is, therefore, an instrumentality of the State, within the meaning of Part III of the Constitution. The husband took on lease from that company, presumably on subsidised rates, quarter No. F-134 owned by that company where he set up his family. While the husband and wife were living together in that quarter which was made their matrimonial home by the apparent consent of the company, differences developed between them, leading to their estrangement and finally to the wife going to a court charging her husband with criminal neglect to maintain her and her three minor children. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur, who inquired into that Charge in M.C. No. 70/80 upheld the wife's contention and granted maintenance decree. Under that order, the husband was made liable to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- to his wife and Rs. 100/- to his minor children per month from 1-11-1981, The husband appears to have obtained a decree against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights. But the wife says that although she is willing to live with her husband the husband had never come to her. Apparently the husband is living away from the company quarter. The result is that the wife with her minor children is living alone in the above quarter belonging to the Company. Retaliation:

(2.) On 15-1-1981 the Husband by his letter addressed to the company took what is clearly a retaliatory action against the wife and the children. On that day, he terminated the lease of the above quarter No. 134 which was in his name. The husband informed the company that he should not any longer be held liable for the payment of rent for that quarter. On receipt of the above letter from the husband, the company had started pressing the wife to vacate the above mentioned quarter belonging to the company. It could not have been unknown to the company that the husband was motivated by a desire to drive out his wife and children from the company quarter. Ignoring the husband's motive the company went on pressing the wife to vacate the quarter. For doing so, the justification of the company is purely legal. The company says that it was losing rent on the quarter which it was hitherto deducting from the salary of the husband, but which it could no longer collect from the salary of the husband. As in law there was never any privity of contract nor privity of estate with the wife, the company thought, that the continued stay of the wife and her children in the company quarter had become unauthorised and unlawful. Treating the possession of the wife and the children as unlawful, the company asked the wife to vacate the quarter. Nice legal points apart, Visakhapatnam which is undoubtedly a city of the future, is today one of the costliest places in India to live in. For the ordinary people, living accommodation is very hard to secure there. The wife having no other place to go was not too ready and willing to vacate the quarter. By necessity, she is continuing to live in that company quarter. When the wife had thus failed to vacate the quarter, the company had threatened her with forcible eviction. The Present Controversy:

(3.) Faced by the hovering prospect of eviction, the wife had gone to the court of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, for protection. She filed O.S. No. 689/82 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, for a permanent injunction restraining the company and her husband from evicting her and her minor children from the company quarter. She made her husband a second defendant to the suit. Pending the hearing of that suit, she asked for a temporary injunction to maintain her possession of the quarter. The District Munsif had initially granted the wife an interim order of injunction in I.A. No. 1478 of 1982, but had later vacated it leaving the company thereafter free to forcibly throw out the wife and the children from the company quarter. Against that order of the District Munsif, the wife appealed to the District Court in C.M.A. No. 5/84. The District Court upheld the contention of the wife and issued an order of injunction restraining the company pending disposal of the suit from evicting the wife and her three minor children, except in due course of law. The District Court reasoned that the wife and the children cannot forcibly be thrown out by the company and that they can be evicted only in due process of law. The learned District Judge observed :