Date of Judgment:
September 14, 2021
Judges:
Justice Hemant Gupta
Justice AS Bopanna
Parties:
Applicant: Abdul Khuddus
Respondent: H.M. Chandiramani (Dead) through LRS. and Ors.
Legal Provisions
- Section 5, Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961– In the event of a tenant's death, the right of tenancy shall pass to his successors in the following order: spouse; son or daughter or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them; parents; daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, for ten years from the date of his death.
- Provided that the successor had been living or doing business in the premises with the deceased tenant as a family member up until the date of his death and was dependent on the deceased tenant.
- Section 322, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 –If the Commissioner determines that a structure is in a ruinous state or poses a danger to passersby or the occupants of nearby structures, the Commissioner may issue a notice requiring the owner or occupier to fence off, demolish, secure, or repair the structure to eliminate any danger.
- Suppose the Commissioner believes the structure is posing an immediate threat to the inmates. In that case, the Commissioner shall order an immediate evacuation, and any police officer may remove any persons who refuse to comply.
- Section 444, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976– Any notice issued or other action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner under Sections 138, 247, 248, 249, 252, 322(1), 323(1), 328(1), 329, 330, 337, 345, 347, 354, 355 and 358 may be appealed to the Standing Committee.
- Order XXXIX Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure – The Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached in the case of disobedience or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction or order was granted or made.
Overview
- The appeals before the Supreme Court were against an order of the High Court of Karnataka Division Bench in three First Appeals.
- The first appeal was against the judgment and decree of the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for permanent and mandatory injunction.
- The second appeal stems from a damages suit filed by the Plaintiff on 6.10.2003. To compensate for the damages, the Plaintiff was deemed entitled to Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 10,000 per month until possession was restored.The defendants and official respondents filed two appeals.The third appeal stems from the first suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, which the Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore dismissed on 16.4.2005.
- The High Court heard and decided all three appeals together. It dismissed the Plaintiff's appeals from the Trial Court's judgment and decree. Still, it allowed the Plaintiff's appeal arising from judgment and decree in his first suit.
- The Rent Controller assigned the Plaintiff as a tenant under Section 5 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The appellant filed an ejectment petition against the Plaintiff under Section 21(1)(j) of the Rent Act. The premises were required for bona fide use by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing them and erecting a new structure in their place.
- The building was declared dilapidated, unsafe, and dangerous under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The Plaintiff challenged the show cause notice in W.P. 20400 of 1994, and the High Court directed the officials of the Corporation not to demolish the building except pursuant to afinal order to be made within four weeks.
- The Corporation demolished the building on 9.1.1995. The owners were given vacant land. The demolition order was not appealed under Section 444 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or any other authority or forum.
Issues
- Whether the Karnataka High Court's order was erroneous, and the demolition of the building was in haste?
Judgment
- It was argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court proceeded on the assumption of an interim injunction in the first suit, but the building was demolished on 9.1.1995. The first suit was filed after the demolition on 27.1.1995. Moreover, on 10.8.1998, the Plaintiff's application for violation of an interim order under CPC Order XXXIX Rule 2A was dismissed. The High Court decided the first suit on 16.04.2005. Thus, the Supreme Court found a factual error in the High Court's order.
- It was established that as the Plaintiff was aware of the proceedings against him and since the Corporation had four weeks to make a final decision, it was bound to follow the High Court's direction on 5.1.1995. The building was demolished three days after the order was served. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled the building was not demolished in haste.
- The High Court's finding that the notice under Section 322 of the Act was invalid because the tenant was protected by the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, was also contested. The Court stated that because both Acts operate in distinct fields, it is impossible to say that the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, is preferred to the other.
- The Bench declared the High Court's judgment and decree invalid. The High Court erred in law by holding that the cause of action for both suits are distinct.
- The Supreme Court also observed that the Corporation passed the order on 5.1.1995 and put it on the means of communication, so the date of receipt is irrelevant. Also, the Plaintiff's wife and daughter had removed the goods, including sewing machines, so any loss of goods and machines in the premises would be included in the damages.
Conclusion
The Court had observed that the Municipal Corporation Act deals with broader municipal functions that benefit the residents of the Corporation area. In contrast,the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 only applies to determine landowner and tenant rights. Both operate in distinct spheres with distinct goals.
Given that the building was demolished within three days of receiving notice, the Court found it appropriate to order the appellant to pay the Plaintiff Rs.5 lakhs in damages. The Court held that the appellant must deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs before the Trial Court with the Plaintiff's legal representatives within two months.As a result, the High Court's order of 28.09.2006 was set aside and both suits were dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Questions
- Which Order and Rule under the CPC deals with the consequences of disobedience or breach of injunction?
- Can you name an important judgment pronounced by Justice AS Bopanna?
