Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 – ss.5 and 21 – Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 – ss. 322 and 462 – Transfer of Property Act – s.108(B)(e) – Plaintiff was inducted as tenant by an allotment order passed by the Rent Controller in a building – Ejectment petition filed on ground of bona fide use by landlord for immediate purpose of demolition and erection of new building – Corporation served notice u/s.322 of the Act citing dilapidated condition of building – The said notice was challenged by filing writ petition in the High Court – High Court dismissed the writ petition with direction to pass final order – Final Order passed by Deputy Commissioner and it directed that if the owner or occupier fails to demolish building within 3 days then action will be taken under the Act – Order served on plaintiff on 6.1.1995 at 5:20 PM and demolition by the Corporation took place on 9.1.1995 at around 9 AM – Order of demolition was not challenged in statutory appeal – Plaintiff filed first suit, seeking mandatory injunction and possession after demolition of building, followed by second suit claiming damages – The trial Court granted decree of the quantified damages – In the first appeal, the High Court held that (i) there was a lack of bona fide in issuing notice u/s.322 of the Act; (ii) there was no order passed u/s. 462 of the Act; (iii) building was demolished in a haste manner without giving clear 3 days notice – Therefore, the plaintiff entitled to possession of premise comparable in size and form with that of rented portion of suit property – On appeal, held: The statutory tenant cannot seek repossession after demolition of building u/s.108(B)(e) of the TP Act as the rights and liabilities of a statutory tenant are to be found under the Rent Act – Since, the premises were situated within the urban areas governed by the Rent Act, the tenant has a right to seek possession only in terms of s.27 of the Act if the decree for eviction was passed by the Court on the ground specified under clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of s.21 – In the instant case, the petition for eviction filed by the landlord was withdrawn – S.322 of the Act is a self-contained provision which empowers the Commissioner for immediate evacuation of the property – The notice u/s.462 was not required to be issued – The time for complying with the order does not arise in the case of a building which was in a dilapidated condition endangering life of the citizens – Therefore, judgment and decree of the High Court not sustainable – However, as the building was demolished within three days of receipt of notice, appellant directed to compensate the plaintiff with the damages of Rs. 5 lakhs – Order of High Court set aside – Both the suits dismissed.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. II, R.2 – A building in a dilapidated condition demolished by the corporation – Plaintifftenant filed first suit, seeking mandatory injunction and possession after demolition of building, followed by second suit claiming damages – The High Court held that suit is not barred by the principles of Or.II, R.2 of CPC and cause of action in both the suits was different – Held: Every suit shall include whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action – The cause of action is a bundle of facts and relief of damages is construed to be a component of such bundle of facts – The plaintiff filed first suit after demolition of the building, the right to claim damages for loss of the property including goods and machines was available to the plaintiff on the said date – The plaintiff was required to obtain leave of the Court before filing suit for damages subsequently – The High Court has clearly erred in law in holding that the cause of action for both the suits is different. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The judgment of this Court in Shaha Ratansi Khimji was dealing with the rights of contractual tenant, the statutory tenant cannot seek repossession after the demolition of building under Section 108(B)(e) of the Transfer of Property Act as the rights and liabilities of a statutory tenant have to be found under the Rent Act alone. [Para 31][665-E]
2. The petition for eviction filed by the landlord was withdrawn. Since the premises are situated within the urban areas governed by the Rent Act (Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961), the tenant has a right to seek possession only in terms of Section
27 of the Act if the decree for eviction has been passed by a Court on the ground specified under clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21. Even if it is assumed that decree of eviction was passed on the withdrawal of the eviction petition, the tenant has to seek possession of the premises from the date on which he delivered vacant possession of the premises to the landlord. The plaintiff filed first suit claiming right over the land after demolition of the building but being a statutory tenant, he had to avail the remedy under the Rent Act as the provisions of the TP Act are not applicable to the building and land situated within urban area. In view of the provisions of the Act, the terms of the TP Act cannot be applied for in respect of statutory tenants. The High Court has returned a finding that the plaintiff was a statutory tenant. In view of the said fact, the remedy of the tenant, if any, has to be found within four corners of the Rent Act and not under the TP Act. [Para 32][665-F-H; 666-A-B]
3. Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is a self-contained provision which empowers the Commissioner for immediate evacuation of the property and any person disobeying such orders was to be removed by any Police Officer. Section 462 of the Act is in respect of execution of any work or to take any measures or to do anything. The works and the measures mentioned therein are in respect of other provisions in the statute which contemplate compliance by the citizens. Section 322 of the Act is an independent provision. Therefore, the notice under Section 462 of the Act was not required to be issued. The time for complying with the order does not arise in the case of a building which was in dilapidated condition endangering life of the citizens. [Para 33][666-C-E]
4. The plaintiff had filed the first suit on 27.1.1995 after the tenanted premises were demolished. The right to claim damages for loss of the property including goods and machines was available to the plaintiff on the said date. In fact, in the second suit, the plaintiff has pleaded that the cause of action arose to him on 9.1.1995. Every suit shall include whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action. The cause of action is a bundle of facts and relief of damages is construed to be a component of such bundle of facts. The plaintiff was conscious of the fact that he wants to sue for damages which is evident from his averment in para 9 of the plaint of the first 27 suit but the plaintiff was required to obtain leave of the Court before filing suit for damages subsequently. The High Court has clearly erred in law in holding that the cause of action for both the suits is different. [Para 34, 35][666-E-F; 667-B-C]
5. The High Court has returned a finding that the Rent Act will prevail over the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. However, this Court is unable to agree with this observation. Both the statutes are enacted by the State of Karnataka. The Act deals with the municipal functions which are wider and welfareoriented towards the residents of the area of Corporation, whereas the Rent Act has a limited application for determining the rights of land owner and tenant. Both operate in separate spheres as both have different objectives to be achieved. [Para 38] [668-G-H; 669-A-B]
6.1. The finding of the High Court that the building was demolished without giving clear three days’ notice is partly correct. The notice was served upon the plaintiff on 6.1.1995 and the building was demolished on 9.1.1995. Thus, clear three days’ notice was not served upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff was however aware of the proceedings initiated by the Corporation on the ground that the building in question was in dilapidated condition and unsafe for human inhabitation. The plaintiff had challenged such notice before the High Court. The High Court had given four weeks’ time to the Corporation to pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. The building was inspected by the Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation and opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff as well. Therefore, it is not a case where there was any sudden development leading to the demolition of the building but the order of demolition was a considerate action passed after the report of the Court Commissioner was submitted before the High Court and the Corporation was given time to finally decide the show cause notice issued on 24.5.1994. In fact, there is three days’ notice from the date of the order but not from the date of receipt of the notice. [Para 41, 42][672-G-H; 673-A-D]
6.2. Once the order was passed by the Corporation on 5.1.1995 and was put on the means of communication, the date of actual receipt of notice is insignificant as the receipt could be delayed by the recipient, though there is no such attempt or finding. The wife and daughter of the plaintiff had removed the goods including sewing machines etc., hence the damages would include any loss of goods and the machines which were in the tenanted premises in question. Keeping in view the fact that the building was demolished within three days of the receipt of notice, it is deemed appropriate to order the appellant to compensate the plaintiff with the damages of Rs.5 lakhs. Such amount will be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff in accordance with law. The appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within a period of two months before the trial court. [Para 43][674-F-H; 675-A]
Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank (1990)
4 SCC 406 : [1990] 3 SCR 649 – followed.
Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee (2001) 1 SCC 564: [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 630; V. Dhanpal
Chettiar v. Yesodai Amma (1979) 4 SCC 214: [1980] 1 SCR 334; Pradesh Kumar Bajpai v. Binod Behari Sarkar (Dead) by Lrs (1980) 3 SCC 348: [1980] 3 SCR 93; K. K. Krishnan v. M. K. Vijaya Ragavan (1980) 4 SCC 88: [1981] 1 SCR 139; N. Motilal & Ors. v. Faisal Bin Ali & Anr (2020) 13 SCC 667 : [2020] 1 SCR 556; Suraj Rattan Thirani v. Azamabad Tea Co. Ltd. AIR 1965 SC 295 : [1964] 6 SCR 192 ; State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217 : [1985] 3 SCR 598; State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (1969) 3 SCC 28 : [1970] 2 SCR 657 – relied on.
Shaha Ratansi Khimji and Sons v. Kumbhar Sons Hotel Private Limited and Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 1 : [2014] 6 SCR 1101; T. Lakshmipathi & Ors. v. P. Nithyananda Reddy & Ors. (2003) 5 SCC 150 : [2003] 3 SCR 173; R.S. Grewal & Ors. v. Chander Prakash Soni & Anr (2019) 6 SCC 216 : [2019] 6 SCR 130; Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank & Anr (2000) 4 SCC 406 : [2000] 2 SCR 1102 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.