AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 4321 : AIROnline 2021 SC 714 (From: 2006 (6) AIR Kar R 584)
Civil Appeal No. 1833 of 2008 with 1834 of 2008, D.14-9-2021.
Abdul Khuddus v. H.M. Chandiramani (Dead) By Lrs. and others.
(A) Karnataka Rent Control Act (22 of 1961), Ss. 5, 21(1)(j) · Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 108(B)(e) Dangerous structures Demolition of-Statutory tenant Statutory protection Plea of plaintiff-tenant that despite demolition of building by Cor- poration, tenancy rights survives and he was entitled for double protection under both 1961 Act and 1882 Act – Tenanted premises situated within urban areas and governed by 1961 Act – Tenant had right to seek possession only in terms of S. 27 of 1961 Act Possession of premises had to be sought from date on which plaintiff delivered vacant possession to landlord -Suit however filed by plaintiff claiming right over land, after demolition of building Provisions of 1882 Act not applicable to building and land situated within urban area – Both Laws operate in separate spheres as both have different objectives to be achieved Right of tenancy does not extend to land — Plaintiff not entitled for Double protection.
(B) Karnataka Rent Control Act (22 – of 1961), Ss. 5, 21(1)(j) Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (14 of 1977), Ss. 322, 462(2) – Dangerous structures Demolition of Issuance of notice Tenancy rights-Plea of plaintiff-tenant that notice of demolition u/S. 462 of 1977 Act not served upon him — Com- missioner empowered to order immediate evacuation of property and any person disobeying such orders was to be removed by Police Officer – Notice u/ S. 462 of 1977 Act not required to be issued Time for complying with order does not arise in case of a building which was in dilapidated condition endangering life of citizens Though clear three days’ notice was not served upon plaintiff Plaintiff was very much aware of proceedings initiated by Corporation on ground that building was in dilapi dated condition There was no sud- den development leading to demolition of building-Non issuance of notice, not significant Plaintiff not entitled to equivalent sized shop in newly constructed building.