SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Kar) 238

Karnataka High Court
HIRALAL J. - Appellant
Versus
CORPN.OF CITY OF BANGALORE - Respondent
Decided On : 08-12-81
W.P. : 5228 of 81

Advocates:
K.N.SUBHA READY, R.N.BYRA REDDY, S.V.SUBRAMANIAM, U.L.NARAYANA RAO, V.KRISHNA MURTHY

The owner of a building has an absolute right to demolish his building, and the demolition of a building is not regulated by the Act.

Headnote:

An issue arose regarding the issuance of a building licence to the owner of a property, leading to a series of disputes between the tenant and the landlord. The tenant claimed occupation of two tenements, while the landlord disputed this claim. The tenant filed multiple suits and appeals seeking injunctions to prevent the demolition of the building. The court found that the tenant's conduct disentitled him to relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The court also held that the demolition of a building is not regulated by the Act and that the owner has an absolute right to demolish his building. The court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule with costs of respondent No. 3.

K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) AN otherwise simple case of an issue of a building licence to the owner of property by the local authority with which others and even a tenant in occupation of an existing building is not generally concerned, is the subject matter of this writ petition. But, alas, that simple matter is not so simple and has become unnecessarily complicated by reason of strained relationship between the landlord and tenant that is symptomatic of many a metropolitan city like bangalore, to which the local authority of the area and Government, have made their contribution, the result of which has been a series of proceedings between the tenant and the landlord before that very local authority, Government, subordinate Courts and this Court. Unfortunately, this writ petition will not also end their disputes and may possibly conclude the validity of the licence issued to the landlord. With this preface it is appropriate to notice the facts that are necessary for a proper disposal of the questions that arise for determination in the case.

( 2 ) A building with various tenements situated at Haines Road, Civil station, Bangalore, initially given municipal Corporation No. 27, some lime thereafter given Nos. 27, A|27, b|27, C|27, D|27, 27|a, 27|b and 27|d but are currently given Municipal corporation Nos. 78 to 86 was owned by one K. Phoolchand. On 3. 4. 78 the said Phoolchand sold the said building to respondent No. 3 under a registered sale deed of that date (Annexure-H ). As on the date of the agreement to sell and the date of sale, while the petitioner claims that he was in 9ccupation of two independent buildings or two tenements (hereinafter referred to as tenements) bearing Municipal corporations Nos. 82 and 83 as a tenant of the vendor and there after his vendee corresponding to old municipal Corporation No. 27, respondent No. 3 so far as this proceeding is concerned admits that the petitioner was and is in occupation of tenement no. 83 only. But, there is no dispute between them that on the purchase of the building by respondent No. 3 the petitioner has recognised him as his landlord.

( 3 ) ON 8. 3. 79, respondent No. 3 has filed a petition under S. 21 (1) (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act of 1961 in H. R. C. No. 185 of 1979 in the court of the then Civil Judge, Civil station, Bangalore which now stands transferred to the Court of Small causes, Bangalore, for eviction, of the petitioner and his son H. Jawaharlal from tenement bearing 83 which is being resisted by them and is still pending disposal before the said court.

( 4 ) ON 21. 5. 79 respondent No. 3 made an application under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act of 1976 (Karnataka act No. 14 of 1977) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the corporation of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for issue of a building licence for re-construction of the aforesaid building as set out in the plan annexed to that application. On an examination of that application, the Commissioner of the Corporation, the competent authority, without notice to the petitioner or examining his alleged claim, sanctioned a building licence on 7. 5. 79 bearing No. LP 845|79-80 (Annexure-L) with some modifications in the plan proposed by respondent No. 3.

( 5 ) AS a step to undertake the reconstruction of the building as per the aforesaid licence, respondent No. 3 on or about 29. 11. 80 started demolition of a wall on the western portion of tenement No. 82 which triggered off various proceedings. A brief reference to those proceedings is necessary for appreciating the contentions urged by both sides.

( 6 ) ON 29. 11. 80 one Jawaharalal, who is the son of the petitioner, filed o. S. No. 10349 of 1980 in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore for a permanent injunction to restrain respondent No. 3 from demolishing, the building and interfering with his and father's possession of tenement no. 82 with an application for a temporary

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top