Karnataka High Court
Sharfuddin S/O Mohammed Sab vs Jaypee Cement Company Ltd on 9 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6739
RSA No. 200084 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200084 OF 2023 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SHARFUDDIN S/O MOHAMMED SAB,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: RET. LOCO DRIVER,
R/O. QUARTER NO. G-4/1,
JAYPEE CEMENT COLONY, SHAHABAD,
TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585228.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. S. KINIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed JAYPEE CEMENT CORPORATION LTD,
by RENUKA (FORMERLY KNOWN ZAWAR CEMENT PVT. LTD)
Location: HIGH THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER,
COURT OF PERSONAL AND ADMIN, SHAHABAD,
KARNATAKA TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585227.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R. S. SIDHAPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LOWER APPELLANT
COURT SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC OF CHITTAPUR DATED:
27.08.2021 IN THE RA.NO.8/2015 AND FURTHER SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF TRIAL COURT CIVIL JUDGE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6739
RSA No. 200084 of 2023
AND JMFC SHAHABAD DATED:31.03.2015 IN O.S.NO.17/2011
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. This appeal is filed by the defendant changing
the concurrent finding in a suit for possession. There is no
dispute that the defendant/appellant is the retired
employee of the plaintiff/respondent. The
defendant/appellant was allowed to occupy the official
quarters during his tenure as employee of the plaintiff
company. The defendant/appellant has attained the age of
superannuation. Even after attaining age of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6739
superannuation, he has not vacated the premises. Hence,
the suit is filed seeking eviction and the suit is decreed.
3. The defendant/appellant filed first appeal before
the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court
concurred with the finding of the Trial Court and the
appeal is dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant
/appellant would contend that the company is in arrears
towards the service benefits payable to the appellant and
despite the award being passed by the Labour Court, the
arrears payable to the appellant are not paid. Thus, he
would contend that the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court committed an error in granting a decree
for possession in favor of the plaintiff/respondent.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would contend that the issue relating to the arrears of
service benefits and the issue involved in this case are
entirely different and they cannot be tagged. This is
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6739
further submission that the appellant has retired from the
company in the year 2009, and he was immediately
required to vacate the premises, which he has not done so
far. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
6. This court has considered the contentions raised
at the bar and perused the records.
7. It is an admitted factual position that, the
appellant was the employee of the respondent company.
He retired in the year 2009. He was occupying the official
residential quarters allotted to him as per the terms and
conditions of employment, he is required to vacate the
premises as soon as he attained the age of
superannuation.
8. Admitted factual position is that the defendant/
appellant has not vacated the suit premises despite
attaining the age of superannuation. This being the
position the company rightly initiated proceeding for
eviction and the decree is passed in favor of the company.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6739
The First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal,
noticing the fact that the appellant has attained the age of
superannuation. The employee is allowed to occupy the
official premises as long as he is the employee of the
company. The terms and conditions of the employment do
not enable the retired employee to occupy the premises
given to the employee during his tenure as the employee
of the company. Once the employee attains the age of
superannuation, the employee is required to vacate the
premises. The appellant has not vacated the premises.
9. The reason assigned by the appellant not to
vacate the premises, that the company is in arrears and
there is an award in favor of the appellant and against the
company to pay the service benefits to the appellant is not
a ground to occupy the premises and not to vacate the
premises after attaining the age of superannuation. In
case, the respondent company is in arrears, the appellant
has to execute the award which is said to have been
passed in his favor. The appellant cannot maintain a stand
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6739
that as long as the arrears are not paid, he is not going to
vacate the official premises. Such contention is not
available to the appellant/past employee of the company.
10. No substantial question of law would arise and
accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
KBM
CT:PK
