Summary
The Supreme Court held that retrospective 2014 amendments left the textile undertaking’s protected tenancy vested in the Central Government and rendered the eviction decree and NTC’s undertakings unenforceable. The landlord must pursue the real tenant under the applicable rent law. The amendments’ validity was not decided. Review, contempt and NTC’s directions application were disposed of, with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies and revive contempt if the validating law were struck down.
Issues
- Whether the Union, though not a party to the original appeal, could seek review as an aggrieved person.
- What effect the retrospective amendments had on statutory tenancy and enforcement of the decree and undertakings.
- Whether contempt should continue and what remedies remained for the landlord.
Provisions considered
- Article 137, Constitution of IndiaThe Union could invoke review as an aggrieved third party. The Court considered the effect of retrospective legislation and the statutory legal fiction. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Section 3(3)–(4), inserted retrospectively by the 2014 Amendment and Validation Act, Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995Leasehold rights, including protected statutory tenancy in this context, remained vested in the Central Government notwithstanding other vesting in NTC. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 39, 41, 42, 45, 55)
- Section 39(a) and (c), Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1995The retrospective validation and express enforcement bar applied notwithstanding decrees or NTC undertakings, making the existing decree and undertakings unenforceable. (¶¶ 30, 37, 49, 51, 53, 55)
- Section 3(1)(a), Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999Premises let to the Government remained within the rent legislation; eviction of the real statutory tenant required recourse to the competent rent forum. (¶¶ 35, 36, 43, 47, 49, 55)
Held
- Review was not confined to original parties. The Union’s asserted and retrospectively recognised tenancy interest made it an aggrieved person entitled to seek review. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The original conclusion under the unamended law did not require review, but the retrospective amendments altered the legal position. Their legal fiction had to receive full effect, including its consequences for enforceability. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Leasehold rights in this statutory context included the protected tenancy surviving expiry of the contractual lease. Those rights remained vested in the Central Government from 1 April 1994; the contrary argument treating them as excluded was rejected. (¶¶ 33, 34, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
- The landlord had sued only NTC under the Transfer of Property Act. Under the retrospectively applicable regime, the decree and undertakings could not be enforced; eviction must instead be sought against the Union through the applicable rent legislation. (¶¶ 36, 37, 47, 49, 51, 55)
- The validating law’s constitutional validity was not in issue and remained open to challenge. Contempt was disposed of, with liberty to revive it if a successful challenge resulted in that law being struck down. (¶¶ 31, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57)
- Delay and additional-ground applications were allowed. Review and the remaining proceedings were disposed of with the stated liberties, without costs. (¶¶ 53, 57)
Result
Delay condoned and additional grounds permitted. Review, contempt, NTC’s directions application and all other applications disposed of without costs; landlord’s appropriate remedies and conditional liberty to revive contempt preserved.