NABIN PANDEY Vs. INDIAN TUBE COMPANY 1953 LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, dated the 19th June, 1964 passed in Title Appeal No. 91/55 of 1963/64. The petition is on behalf of defendant No. 1, who was respondent No. 1 in the court of appeal below. It arises out of the title suit brought by the Indian Tube Company Ltd., Jamshedpur, opposite party No. 1, for eviction of defendant No. 1 from the Company's quarters No. 16/29 and for delivery of Khas possession. In substance, the case of the plaintiff-Company was that quarters No. 16/29 belonged to the plaintiff-company. Defendant No. 1 was the General Secretary of the Tube Company Workers' Union and he was allowed occupation of quarters No. 14/19 as a monthly tenant in October, 1957 during the currency of the term of his office as General Secretary. In April, 1960, defendant No. 1 approached the Company for a better house, and, accordingly, he was allotted another quarters No. 16/29 on a monthly rental of Rs. 40.50nP. besides electric charges. On the 8th June, 1960, defendant No. 1 ceased to be the General Secretary, and, another gentleman named one Shri Sidheshwari Choudhari was elected General Secretary in his place. Defendant No. 1, therefore, had no right to continue In the quarters allotted to him after the 8th June, 1960. There was a further allegation incidental to it that the Company required this house for use and occupation by its own employee. It is not necessary for me to refer to the other matters which have been brought on the plaint by amendment, since that is not necessary for the determination of the question in dispute before me in the present application.

(2.) Several pleas were raised in the written statement, one of which, that is important is that according to defendant No. 1 the quarters in question were allotted to him not as the General Secretary of the Union but in his personal capacity. He denied, however, that he ceased to be the General Secretary with effect from the 8th June, 1960 The defendant, therefore, challenged the right of the plaintiff to evict him from the house on these and other technical grounds.

(3.) The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, accepted the defence case in so far as he held that the house from which the defendant was sought to be evicted was allotted to him not as General Secretary of the Workers' Union but in his persona] capacity The Court also found against the plaintiff in so far as its case was based on the Company's necessity for getting vacant possession of the house. In the result, the suit was dismissed.