ABDUL KHUDDUS versus H.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 14-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 643
643
ABDUL KHUDDUS
v.
H.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1833 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
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 –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
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 – Plaintiff-
tenant 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 f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.