PETITIONER: THE HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/1996 BENCH: N.P. SINGH, S.B. MAJMUDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.B. Majmudar. J.
Leave granted in all these three Special Leave
petitions.
By consent of learned advocates of parties the appeals
were finally heard and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
The contesting parties in these appeals are two
universities, namely, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla
and Punjab University, Chandigarh. The dispute centers round
the ownership and possession of immovable properties
situated at shimla in the State of Himachal Pradesh. These
properties consist of St. Bernard. Building and Dingle
Lodge, located at Upper Kaithu, Shimla. It is the case of
the appellant-university that these properties have vested
in it by virtue of Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh
University Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The respondent- university opposes this contention and
submits that these properties belonged to the respondent-
university and their possession by the appellant-university
was only as tenant. The contention of the appellant-
University has stood rejected in the proceedings initiated
before the Trial Court and subsequently in the hierarchy of
proceedings in further appeal and revision before the High
Court. Decrees for possession have come to be passed against
the appellant-university by the Trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court and which have got confirmed by the High
Court.
There separate proceedings which have culminated into
these three appeals were initiated by the respondent-
university against the appellant-university. First
proceeding was an application for eviction filed by the
respondent-university under Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent
Control Act praying for an order of eviction on the ground
that the appellant-university had not paid rent in respect
of these premises. It was also alleged that it had sublet
the premises to other persons without the written consent of
the landlord, respondent-university. Two other suits were
also filed by the respondent-university before the
Subordinate judge, 1st Class (I), Shimla against the
appellant-university and another for recovery of possession
of two suites, namely, suite no. 2 and suite no. 4 in the
very same St. Bernard Building together with damages for use
and occupation. In these two suits the respondent-
university contended that it owned the property and
appellant was a tenant on payment of rent and it had already
surrendered its tenancy qua these suites to the respondent.
That accordingly the suites were locked and subsequently the
appellant-university or its servants broken open the locks
and had occupied the suites and also caused damage t the
articles. Punjab University thus prayed for recovery of
possession of the suites and also claimed damages. In all
these proceedings common defence was put forward by the
appellant-university, namely, by virtue of Section 8 of the
Act these properties had vested in the appellant-university
and, therefore, the respondent-university had no right,
title or interest therein. This defence was rejected by the
Trial Court and it was held that respondent-university was
the owner of these premises and the appellant was only a
tenant as it had defaulted in payment of rent, application
for eviction was required to be allowed and the suits were
also required to be decreed as the appellant had no right to
remain in the possession thereof. The appeals preferred
against decrees in the suits got dismissed by the Appellate
Court. Similarly the order passed in eviction proceedings
also got confirmed by the Appellate Court and that is how
the appellant-university filed two second appeals against
decrees passed in title suits of the respondent-university
and also moved a revision application against the decree for
possession as granted in eviction proceedings by the Rent
Controller. As all these three proceedings raised common
contention between the parties they were heard together and
were disposed of by the common judgment of the High Court.
The second appeal as well as revision application of the
appellant-university were dismissed and that is how the
appellant-university is before us in the present
proceedings.
The short question which was placed for our
consideration by the learned counsel for the appellant-
university was whether the appellant-university had become
the owner of the suit properties by virtue of Section 8 of
the Act. It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant-university that in view of the express
language of the said Section all the assets and liabilities
of Punjab University Regional Centre for post Graduated
Studies and Punjab University Evening College, Shimla vested
in the appellant-university. That these two centres were run
by the respondent-university prior to the application of
Section 8 of the Act. That earlier Shimla was also a part
and parcel of Punjab State and by virtue of the Punjab
Reorganisation Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘as
Reorganisation Act’) part of the territories of the Punjab
State got bifurcated and a separate State of Himachal
Pradesh was ultimately constituted. That by virtue of
Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act the appellant-
university became a successor of the Punjab University qua
its earlier functioning and operation at Shimla. That
entitled the appellant to step in the shoes of the
respondent-university qua these premises and the
institutions which were earlier belonging to the respondent-
university and which were functioning at Shimla fell within
the local jurisdiction of the appellant, successor-
university. This was the legal effect of Section 72(1) read
with Section 72(3) of the Reorganisation Act. It was next
submitted that once that happened by virtue of Section 8 of
the Act all the assets and liabilities of the Punjab
University Regional Centre for Post Graduate Studies and
Punjab University Evening College, Shimla got statutorily
vested in the appellant-university. That these two
institutions of the Punjab University were being run at the
suit premises and, therefore, the suit premises
automatically got vested in the appellant-university. That
due to some misconception about the correct legal position,
the Vice Chancellor of the appellant-university had
acknowledged that the appellant-university had no right,
title or interest in the suit premises and was to be
permitted to continue as tenant thereof but having realised
the legal position payment of rent for occupation of the
premises was suspended by the appellant-university and that
there could not be any estoppel about the correct legal
position as envisaged by Section 8 of the Act and,
therefore, the High Court was in error in taking the view
that Section 8 did not apply to the facts of the present
case and that the suit premises did not vest in ownership of
the appellant-university.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-
university submitted that since last number of years the
appellant-university had treated respondent as the owner of
the premises and had acknowledge that they were tenants of
the premises. That the subsequent somersault taken by the
appellant-university was not legally sustainable. That
Section 8 of the Act could not apply to the facts of the
case as correctly held by the High Court for the simple
reason that the appellant had not established by any cogent
evidence that the concerned Centre for post Graduate Studies
and the Evening College at Shimla belonged to the Punjab
University. That on the contrary the finding of the Trial
Court was that this Centre and College were tenants of the
building belonging to the Punjab University and hence the
building could not vest in the appellant-university by
virtue of section 8. It was also submitted that even
assuming that the Centre and the College were departments or
limbs of the Punjab University there was nothing on the
record to show that the premises in question in which this
Centre and College were located belonged to either of them
or had become the assets of either of them. Even on that
ground, therefore, Section 8 would be out of picture. The
appellant, therefore, continued to be tenant in arrears and
was rightly ordered to be evicted from the premises.
Similarly the suits in favour of the respondent were also
decreed as the appellant had no right to remain in
possession of these two suites which were subject-matter of
the Civil Suits.
In order to resolve this controversy between two
contesting universities it is necessary to keep in view
certain introductory facts. Before 1966 Shimla was part of
Punjab State and Punjab University was the only university
which was functioning both at chandigarh and also at shimla
which was within its territorial jurisdiction. It also
appears that the respondent-university was running two
centres at Shimla, one being the Punjab University Regional
Centre for post Graduate Studies and another being Punjab
University Evening College, Both these institutions were run
by the respondent-university at St. Bernard Building and
Dingle Lodge situated at Shimla. These premises were gifted
to the respondent-university by a registered Gift Deed dated
7th December 1959 marked as Ex, PW1/A. The said Gift Deed
was made by Pt. Thakur Datt Sharma of Dharmarth Trust, Thus
from 7th December 1959 the suit premises came into the
ownership of respondent-university as a donee and in those
premises the respondent was running the aforesaid
institutions at Shimla. In 1966 the bigger State of Punjab
came to be bifurcated and on account of reorganisation of
the State two separate State of Punjab and Haryana and New
Union Territories of Chandigarh and some part of the
existing Himachal Pradesh State territory then known as
union Territory of Himachal Pradesh came to be formed. The
latter territory subsequently became the State of Himachal
Pradesh. Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act on which
strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the
appellant along with its sub-sections (1) and (3) reads as
Under :
“72. General provisions as to
statutory cooperations, (1) Save as
otherwise expressly provided by the
foregoing provisions of this part,
where any body corporate
constituted under a Central Act
State Act or provincial Act for the
existing State of Punjab or any
part thereof serves the needs of
the successor State or has, by
virtue of the provisions of part II
become an inter-State body
corporate, then, the body corporate
shall, on and from the appointed
day, continue to function and
operate in those areas in respect
of which it was functioning and
operating immediately before that
day, subject to such directions as
may from time to time be issued by
the Central Government, until other
provision is made by law in respect
of the said body corporate.
(2)…
(3) For the removal of doubt it is
hereby declared that the provisions
of this section shall apply also to
the Punjab University constituted
under the Punjab University Act
1947, (East Punjab Act 7 of 1947)
the Punjab Agricultural University
constituted under the Punjab
Agricultural University Act, 1961,
(Punjab Act 32 of 1961) and the
Board constituted under the
provisions of part III of the Sikh
Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (Punjab Act 8
of 1925).”
In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions of the
Reorganisation Act it becomes clear that from 1966 onwards
the erstwhile Punjab University was succeeded by the
appellant-university insofar as its functioning and
operation at Shimla were concerned. Upto this stage there
cannot be any serious dispute between the parties. However
the real dispute between the parties centers round the
operation of Section 8 of the Act which reads as under :
“8. Transfer of assets and
liabilities and of employees of
certain institutions to the
University. On the commencement of
this Act, the assets and
liabilities of Punjab University-
Regional Centre for post Graduate
Studies, Shimla and the Punjab
University Evening College, Shimla,
shall stand transferred to and
shall vest in the University, in
accordance with the terms and
conditions mutually agreed to
between the University and the
Punjab University, Chandigarh. All
officers and other employees of
these institutions holding office
as such immediately before the
commencement of this Act, shall, on
such commencement become the
officers and other employees of the
University;
provided that :-
(1) such officers and employees of
the above-mentioned institutions
shall be allowed to exercise an
option whether or not they wish
their services to be taken over by
the University;
(2) the existing rights and service
conditions of such employees who
opt for service in the University
shall be protected;
(3) any service rendered by any
such officer or other employee
before such transfer of his service
to the University shall be deemed
to be service rendered in
connection with the administration
of the University, on the condition
that their leave, pension and
provident fund and gratuity
contribution in respect of the
service rendered by them to the
Punjab University, Chandigarh,
shall be reimbursed to the
University by the Punjab
University, Chandigarh;
Provided further that in the event
of any dispute or difficulty in the
matter of implementation of the
provisions of this section the
matter shall be referred to the
Central Government, whose decision
shall be final.”
A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows that out
of different institutions belonging to the respondent-
university which might be functioning at Shimla or in any
other part of Himachal Pradesh which came under the
operational jurisdiction of appellant-university by virtue
of Reorganisation Act, the Legislature of the State of
Himachal Pradesh in its wisdom selected two such
institutions which were earlier run by the Punjab University
at Shimla, namely, Punjab University Regional Centre for
post Graduate Studies and Punjab University Evening College,
Shimla for the purpose of vesting its assets and liabilities
in the successor-university, namely, the appellant, For
applicability of section 8 of the Act to the suit premises
two conditions are required to be satisfied, (i) that the
concerned two institutions at Shimla belonged to the
erstwhile Punjab University; and (ii) that the assets and
liabilities of these two institutions included, amongst
others, the suit premises, namely, St. Bernard Building and
Dingle Lodge wherein they were run so that they could also
vest in the appellant-university as successor-in-title to
the respondent-university, So far as the aforesaid two
conditions for applicability of Section 8 are concerned it
may be noted that the learned Appellate Judge came to the
following finding:
“While deciding issue No. 1, the
learned Rent Controller had held
that the respondent is not the
owner of premises in question but
is only a tenant thereof and the
relationship of landlord and tenant
exists between the parties. This
finding objections on behalf of the
respondent despite opportunity nor
has been assailed at the time of
arguments. I do not find any
infirmity in the findings returned
by the Rent Controller on this
issue and accordingly confirm the
same.”
This finding of the appellate Court was not challenged
by the appellant-university in appeal as clearly noted by
the Appellate Court in paragraph eleven of its judgment.
However as the said contention which went to the root of the
matter was allowed to be urged by the High Court in further
appeals and revision we have considered this contention on
its own merits. While considering this contention, we must
observe that the finding reached by the Trial Court that the
institutions, namely, Centre for post Graduate Studies and
the Evening College, Shimla were the tenants of the Punjab
University, cannot be sustained in the light of the express
language of Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 itself
contemplates that these institutions belonged to Punjab
University otherwise there would have been no occasion for
the Legislature to lay down that the terms and conditions of
vesting of these institutions in the appellant-university
would be mutually agreed to between the appellant-university
on the one hand and Punjab university, Chandigarh on the
other. Implicit in this provision is the statutory
assumption that these institutions which were run at Shimla
belonged to the respondent-university, That also contra-
indicates the contention of the respondent-university that
it was the landlord of the premises and the centres which
were run therein were its tenants, It has to be kept in view
that it is nobody’s case that these two centres had any
legal entity or were corporation soles. It appeared they
were just the limbs of respondent-university and were part
and parcel of its own establishment and organisation. We
must, therefore, hold disagreeing with the Trial Court as
well as the High Court that the Punjab University Regional
Centre for post Graduate Studies and Punjab University
Evening College at Shimla which were being run at the suit
premises belonged to respondent-Punjab University and were
owned by it. The first condition for applicability of
Section 8, therefore, stands satisfied. However the real
difficulty centers round applicability of the second
condition which must also be cumulatively found to be
satisfied before the sweep of Section 8 can be effectively
utilised by the appellant-university for proving its
ownership over the suit premises. It must, therefore, be
shown by the appellant-university that not only the
aforesaid two institutions at Shimla belonged to the
respondent-university but the suit premises wherein these
institutions were functioning and located also formed a part
and parcel of the assets of the said two institutions. It is
obvious that unless they belonged to these institutions they
would not get vested by the statutory operation of Section 8
in the appellant-university. Learned counsel for the
appellant despite his best efforts could not point out any
relevant evidence for showing that the suit premises,
namely, the St. Bernard Building and the Dingle Lodge which
admittedly belonged to the respondent-university as per the
Gift Deed of 1959 had at any subsequent time got handed over
in the ownership of the aforesaid two institutions run by
the respondent-university at Shimla. In other words the
ownership of these suit premises continued to remain with
the respondent-university wherein these two institutions
were permitted to be run by the respondent-university
presumably as its licensees. All the assets of these
institutions comprising of movable properties and cash as
well as other furnitures and fixtures located at these
premises might have got vested in the appellant-university
along with the liabilities of these institutions by virtue
of Section 8 but the further question whether the very
building in which these two institutions were functioning
had also got transferred in ownership from the Punjab
University to these two institutions and had thus become
their assets was required to be answered in the light of the
available evidence on record. Learned counsel for the
appellant was not able to enlighten us on this aspect. He
could not point any evidence to show as to when if at all
respondent-university divested itself of its ownership of
these premises and vested it in these tow institutions. On
the contrary the evidence on record suggested that the
appellant-university consistently took the view that even
though the institution with assets and liabilities might
have vested in the appellant-university by virtue of Section
8 the ownership of the building had not got vested in these
institutions which had no independent legal existence. And
that is how years back the Vice Chancellor of the appellant-
university by letter Ex, P-8 had requested the respondent-
university to permit the appellant-university to continue
these institutions in the suit premises for some time and
had agreed to pay rent and that is how by Ex. P-11 the
respondent-university having accepted this request of the
vice chancellor of the appellant-university had decided that
the suit premises may be placed at the disposal of the
appellant-university for a period of two years on the same
terms on which they were made available to Centre for post
Graduate Studies and the Evening College. It must,
therefore, be held that the appellant-university failed to
establish the second condition for the applicability of
Section 8 of the Act, namely, that the suit premises were
belonging to these two institutions and were forming part
and parcel of their assets at Shimla. It is easy to
visualise that respondent-university could run its own
institutions which may also be treated as its own
departments at Shimla either in a rented premises or in its
own premises by permitting the concerned institutions to
occupy them on their behalf, but for applicability of
Section 8 and for statutory vesting of these premises in the
appellant-university it must be shown that by any overt act
on the part of the respondent-university which was
admittedly the owner of the premises it had parted with its
ownership in favour of these institutions or had treated
them as the full owners thereof so that the institutions
could be said to be having the premises themselves as a part
and parcel of their own assets. Till that stage was reached
statutory vesting of these premises in the appellant-
university by virtue of Section 8 could not be reached. On
this aspect, therefore, in the absence of any relevant
evidence on record no finding could be reached in favour of
the appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted
that he has got evidence by way of public documents to point
out that the respondent-university used to sanction grants
for running these institutions at Shimla. Even assuming that
to be so all that could be held in favour of the appellant
is that these institutions belonged to the respondent-
university. But we have shown earlier that by itself would
not be sufficient for attracting Section 8 of the Act.
Further requirement of Section 8 was to the effect that
these suit premises wherein these institutions were located
must have become part and parcel of the assets of these
institutions. As that second and more important condition is
found to be lacking in the present case the appellant-
university cannot get the benefit of statutory vesting of
these premises in its favour by virtue of Section 8 of the
Act. The sole basis of the defence of the appellant against
the legal actions taken out by respondent-university is
found to be unsustainable. Consequently no relief can be
given to the appellant-university on that ground. There is
no dispute that the appellant-university had not paid rent
to the respondent for the concerned period and was a
defaulter. Hence on merits also it could not be said that
the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court and the High
Court had committed any error in decreeing the suits as well
as eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against
the appellant.
In the result these appeals fail and are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.