ORDER
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Present suit has been filed by Gyan Singh Kalsi, hereinafter described as the plaintiff for recovery of RPS.5,00,000/- and for a mandatory injunction against the defendants to restore status quo ante as on 5.6.1980 and to implement the directions of the Minister of State for Finance, Government of India.
2. The facts alleged and cajoled from the plaint are that plaintiff is a refugee from Nairobi, Kenya. His ancestors had arrived in 1880 and had settled in Kenya where the plaintiff had a flourishing business. He shifted to India with his family some time in 1969. The plaintiff started business at new Rohtak Road.
3. A building F-41 Connaught Place, originally belonged to M/s Indian Life Assurance Company. It had granted a lease of the premises to Shriek R.K. Singh on 11.6.57. The said premises comprised of first floor flat and portion of the building on the ground floor. On 23rd February, 1967 Shri R.K. Singh entered into an agreement with Life Insurance Corporation and agreed to surrender all the portions of the demised premises.The understanding between the parties was that after construction of the new building Life Insurance Corporation would give an equivalent area to the tenant Shri R K Singh. On 12th December, 1973 plaintiff entered into business partnership with Cantors Chummier singh who held the premises after the death of R K Singh. The business was being run in partnership. The Estate Officer, Life Insurance Corporation had initiated proceedings under Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 against Santosh Kumar Singh, Shri Ram Krishna Iyer and the plaintiff. Damages were also claimed. The Estate officer decided the matter on 13the October, 1979 and held that plaintiff was an unauthorised occupant since 12.12.1973 besides imposed damages of Rs.7,44,000/-. Appeals had ben filed against the said order.
4. The plaintiff knew Dr. Gopal Singh, a former Ambassador of India and President of All India Minority Council. Dr. Gopal Singh had written to the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister of State had heard both the parties and directed that rent should be increased. However, the Life Insurance Corporation rejected the said direction of the minster. In the meantime, the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi was dismissed. The plaintiff had prsued the matter further and challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge, and charged the Life Insurance Corporation, defendant with malafide intentions is alleged to have taken possession of the premises.
5. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the conduct of the defendant is mala fide because the Minster of State for Finance, Union Government had considered the respective contentions of the parties and passed the order on 5th June, 1980. Defendant no.1 Shri R K Mahajan, Controller of Insurance is junior person and was bound by the order of Minister of State. The said order could,not be cancelled. As a result of the dispossession of the plaintiff he had suffered financial loss besides mental agony and for that damages of Rs.5,08,115.00 has been claimed. In addition to that mandatory injunction already referred to above has also been prayed.
6. The defendants contested the suit and controverter the assertions. It was pleaded that the suit as such was not maintainable besides taking other pleas.
7. On 2nd September, 1985 following preliminary issue was framed:-
“Whether the plaintiff has cause of action or the plaint discloses any cause of action against the defendant-LIC? It not, to what effect?”
8. By this judgment the said issue is being decided.
9. While construing the same necessarily it must be held at the outset that coming to a conclusion whether the plaintiff has a cause of action, it is the assertions in the plaint that has to be considered as to whether when assertions of the plaint are taken note of, if there is sufficient ground for proceeding or the civil suit must be dismissed at the threshold for not disclosing a cause a action.
10. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to refer to certain documents that have been placed on the record by the plaintiff means and relied upon in support of the claim.Dr. Gopal Singh, Chairman of all India Minorities Council had written to the Mister of State for Finance on 26th March, 1980 with respect to the said premises. The letter reads:
“My dear Pahariaji,
The enclosed application of Mr. G S Kalsi speaks for itself. The LIC of whom along with another (a widow) is a tenant in New Delhi in a two bedroom flat in the Connaught Place, he is asked to pay Rs.3,000/- PM though the original rent they were paying since 1971 was Rs.250/- only. The area of the flat is 930 sq. Its. Is this not scandalous? The tenant is a refugee from Keyna where he was of great help to our Government. I know him personally and can vouch safe for his philanthropy and affluence. To make this man a refugee twice over in his own motherland (he always kept an India passport) is really sad and heartbreaking.
Mr. Singh is running from pillar to post fighting his case with the LIC in one court to another. I do hope, you would very kindly intervene personally to get a fair rent fixed for him by the LIC so that he can pass his old age in peace.”
With kind regard,
Yours sincerely
DR GOPAL SINGH
11. It was followed by another letter again by Dr. Gopal Singh to the said Minister of Finance dated 14th May, 1980 which also is being reproduced for the sake of facility:-
My dear Paharaiaji,
You had very Kindly ordered that the case of Dr. G S Kalsi (occupying the LIC flat No. F-41, Connaught Place, New Delhi since 1974 after he became a refugee from Kenya) be examined and reported back to you. You gave these orders I believe on April 22, but to date nothing has ben done. The tenant is willing to pay double the earlier rent of Rs.250/- for future as well as for all the years that he has occupied this flat. T he Supreme Court has given a verdict recently that no more than double the rent can be legally charged from a tenant. The LIC want him to pay Rs.8000/ PM since 1971, otherwise they seek to evict him.
I shall be grateful if you could kindly do something urgently about it.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely
DR GOPAL SINGH
12. The Minister of State for Finance on 5th June, 1980 addressed a letter to Dr. Gopal Singh and the same reads as under:-
Dear Dr. Gopal Singhji,
Kindly refer to your letter dated 2.6.80 regarding the case of Shri G S Kalsi.
I am informed that he is occupying an area of 4000 sq. ft. for which rent was fixed long ago. Also that he has not paid rent since 1972. On the contrary he has filed a suit against the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
You are well aware that the rents have gone up manifolds and the demand of LIC is just and right. However, you have yourself suggested increase in rent. Viewing all the circumstances and that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community as also that he is a refugee from Kenya who had been uprooted and deserves all sympathy from the Indian Government regarding rehabilitation in this country, I have fixed a rent of Rs.750/- per month and have directed my office that a fresh agreement should be entered into. I am also asking my department to withdraw suits from the courts, if any, Shri Kalsi be also advised accordingly.
With regards,
Yours sincerely
Jagannath Pahadia
13. It is on the strength of the said correspondence that the plaintiffs learned counsel urged that the premises as such had been allotted by the Minster of State for Finance and consequently the Life Insurance Corporation could not evict the plaintiff and cause mental loss to him.
14. Neither of the two persons, namely, Dr. Gopal Singh or Jagannath Pahadia are parties to the litigation. It would therefore be improper for this court to express anything further pertaining to their conduct. But suffice to say that every person in a country governed by rule of law can only act and pars appropriate orders to which it has the authority and not otherwise. Basically it was a correspondence between Dr. Gopal Singh and the Minister of State for Finance, Government of India. It does not confer any right to the plaintiff who in any case had not been addressed any such letter so as to state that any such right, if at all, which could be created had matured.
15. In this regard reference with advantage must be made to be provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Section 6 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 prescribes the functions of the Corporation and unambiguously provides that subject to rules, If any, made by the Central Government it shall be the general duty of the Corporation to carry on life insurance business in or outside India. The property belonged to the Life Insurance Corporation and there are no rules which permits the Minister of State to allot the property of Life Insurance Corporation. Necessarily the Life Insurance Corporation had to act in accordance with the provisions and within the framework of Life Insurance Corporation Act before allotting or giving the property to any person. Result is obvious that it must be taken that the Minister of State had no right in this regard to act or create any third party interest in the said property.
16. Confronted with that position it had been argued that the said letter referred to above must be taken to be directions of the Central Government and the Life Insurance Corporation was bound to act accordingly. Even in this regard arguments so advance must be held to be without merit and totally misconceived. Section 21 of the Act provides the answer and unfold itself in the following words:-
Corporation to be guided by the directions of Central Government.- In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may give to it in writing; and if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government there on shall be final.
17. One of the necessary conditions before the directions of the Central Government can be held binding is that directions can be given in matters of policy involving public interest. If is not a matter of policy no it involves public interest direction by the Central Government cannot be given. The Central Government cannot interfere in day to day working of the Life Insurance Corporation. In the present case there is nothing on the record to indicate that it is a matter of policy to allot certain premises or belonging to Life Insurance Corporation nor is it alleged or is it pleaded that it was in public interest. In fact no public interest has been shown. The inescapable conclusion therefore, would be that the letter of the Minister cannot be taken to be involving any public interest to bind the Life Insurance Corporation.
18. Furthermore, the letters had been written and exchanged between Dr. Gopal Singh and the Minister of state for Finance, Govt. of India. It is also noted above that the same was not addressed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was already facing proceedings under public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. He earlier had no right, title or interest in the property. If at all such a right was to be created necessarily it could be done executing a lease deed, If the plaintiff was to made a tenant. No such lease deed had ben created no produced.Thus the plaintiff could not be taken to be a tenant.It is not even shown that the plaintiff was accepted as a licensee. The result would be that plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the property in any form even as per his own allegations.
19. In addition to that the plaintiff’s case set up in the plait is that he has been dispossessed illegally in a mala fide manner and therefore is entitled to claim damages details of which have ben given in the plaint. But plaintiff concedes that proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act were pending against him, an order of eviction had been passed. He preferred an appeal and in appeal had filed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking note of the subsequent events, namely the correspondence referred to above. The appeals were dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that he preferred three writ petitions and subsequently the plaintiff had been dispossessed in pursuance of the orders so passed. Once the plaintiff has ben dispossessed in pursuance of the proceedings and the orders so passed evicting the plaintiff having been set aside, indeed the suit for damages will not be maintainable. Suffice to say that as per the plaintiffs own assertion the dispossession must be taken to be in accordance with law. The stay order admittedly that had been passed by this court had been vacated by the court of learned Additional District Judge Delhi. In these circumstances, even as per the assertions of the plaintiff they cannot term that any cause is drawn to permit this court to proceed further. The plaint must be held to be not disclosing cause of action and us it is not maintainable.
20. For these reasons issue is decided against the plaintiff. As a result of the aforesaid, suit must fail and is dismissed.