Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Abdul Khuddus – Appellant
Versus
H.M. Chandiramani (Dead) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1833, 1834 of 2008
Decided On : 14-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226(2) - Public Premises Act - clauses (2) and (3) of Section 2(e) and 52(1) - Permanent and mandatory injunction - Entitled to recover a sum - Damages towards the loss/ destruction of machineries, furniture, fittings and stock-in-trade apart from the damages - One was owner of building - Such building was constructed tiles and wooden beams - Appellant was arrayed as defendant No. 7 in first suit and defendant No. 1 in second suit and was purchaser of front portion of building vide sale deed purchased rear portion of building on same northern side of building - Bangalore City Corporation - Appellant herein filed an ejectment petition seeking ejectment of plaintiff under Section 21(1)(j) of Rent Act on the ground that premises were required for bona-fide use by landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and erecting a new building in place of premises sought to be demolished - Notice under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 was issued by Corporation on ground that building was in dilapidated condition, unsafe and dangerous - Plaintiff said show cause notice in W.P. ad-interim stay was granted by High Court – Held, Court find it difficult to persuade ourselves to accept the view that it is only from actual receipt by him that order becomes effective - If that be the true meaning of communication, it would be possible for a government servant to effectively thwart an order by avoiding receipt of it by one method or other till after the date of his retirement even though such an order is passed and despatched to him before such date - Officer against whom action is sought to be taken, thus, may go away from the address given by him for service of such orders or may deliberately give a wrong address and thus prevent or delay its receipt and be able to defeat its service on him - Such a meaning of the word “communication” ought not to be given unless provision in question expressly so provides - Actual knowledge by him of an order where it is one of dismissal, may, perhaps, become necessary because of consequences contemplates - But such consequences would not occur in the case of an officer who has proceeded on leave and against whom an order of suspension - Wife and daughter of the plaintiff had removed the goods including sewing machines damages would include any loss of goods and machines which were in the tenanted premises in question - Building was demolished within three days of receipt of notice - Plaintiff with the damages - Such amount will be payable to the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff in accordance with law - Appeals are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeals are directed against an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka on 28.9.2006 in three First Appeals filed before it. The first appeal was against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on 16.4.2005 in O.S. No. 10082 of 1995 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘first suit’] whereby the suit of plaintiff, now represented by his legal heirs, for permanent and mandatory injunction was dismissed on 16.4.2005. The other appeal arises out of another suit filed by the plaintiff for claiming damages in O.S. No. 16643 of 1999 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘second suit’] which was decreed on 6.10.2003. The Plaintiff was found entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as damages towards the loss/ destruction of machineries, furniture, fittings and stock-in-trade apart from the damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month towards the loss of business of plaintiff from 9.1.1995 till the possession is restored, subject to final decision of first suit. The defendants, official respondents and the owner, filed two separate appeals against the same. The third appeal arises out of first suit decided by the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 16.4.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction was dismissed.
2. All the three appeals were taken up and decided together by the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff whereas, the appeal arising out of judgment and decree in first suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed.
3. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant on 7.5.1974 by an allotment order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 [for short the ‘Rent Act’]. The rented portion was on the first floor of the two-floor building of Premises No. 50, Ebrahim Saheb Street, Civil Station, Bangalore.
4. One Panduranga Shetty was the owner of the building. Such building was constructed in 1903 with Mangalore tiles and wooden beams. The appellant Abdul Khuddus was arrayed as defendant No. 7 in the first suit and defendant No. 1 in the second suit and was the purchaser of the front portion of the building vide sale deed dated 18.3.1994. Sheikh Hyder purchased the rear portion of the building on the same date whereas one Sheikh Mohd. purchased the northern side of the building on 9.12.1994. The Bangalore City Corporation [for short the ‘Corporation’] is the appellant in the third appeal.
5. The appellant herein filed an ejectment petition seeking ejectment of the plaintiff under Section 21(1)(j) of the Rent Act on the ground that the premises were required for bona-fide use by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and erecting a new building in place of the premises sought to be demolished.
6. A notice under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [for short the ‘Act’] was issued by the Corporation on the ground that the building was in dilapidated condition, unsafe and dangerous. The plaintiff challenged the said show cause notice in W.P. No. 20400 of 1994 whereby an ad-interim stay was granted by the High Court. Later, Shri B. Ravi Kumar, Advocate was appointed as a Commissioner on 27.9.1994 to visit the property and submit a report which was done on 16.11.1994. In the report, it was stated that the building was in a bad condition and that there were also cracks in the building, leakage of water etc.
7. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 8.12.1994 as the same was directed only against show cause notice. However, the High Court directed the officials of the Corporation not to demolish the building except pursuant to a final order to be made within four weeks. The operative part of the order of the High Court reads as under:
The Rent Act does not protect tenants of public premises once the Public Premises Act applies, affirming eviction rights under the latter.
Tenancy rights survive the destruction of the tenanted premises unless explicitly excluded in the lease, and landlords have a statutory obligation to maintain the premises under the Goa Buildings (Le....
The requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is for the benefit of the parties and can be waived by the tenant.
Statutory tenants under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act cannot be evicted without following due legal processes, and contractual agreements cannot circumvent the statutory provisions.
Tenancy rights under a Will cannot override specific contractual terms prohibiting assignment without consent, rendering unauthorized occupation invalid under the Public Premises Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
