LexVELJI LAKSHMI & CO. ETC. versus BENETT COLEMAN & CO. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
j
603
VELJI LAKSHMI & CO. ETC.
v.
BENEIT COLEMAN & CO. ETC.
April 14, 1977
[R. S. SARKAR!A AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J
Bornbay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888-Respondents given permission
to raise teniporary structures on land on condition tl1at they should be pulled
down when called upon to do so-Pren1ises let out to appellant-Municipal
Comn1issioner directed. respondents to pull down the structures to implement
Town Planning Scheme-Commissioner, if competent to order demolition.
Interpretation : Rights and obligations acquired under a te1nporary Act-
Jj survive after expiry of the Act.
A
B
c
Respondent No. 1 constructed some godowns on the plot of land leased out
to them by the Bombay Port Trust in 1933. As a result of explosions in 1944,
-some of the buildings in the area were destroyed.
In order that the building
construction v.1ork in the area might be carried out on modern lines, the Bombity
Municipal Corporation formulated a scheme under the provisions of the Bombay
. Town Planning Act, 1915 to restrain the owners of the land fron1 re-constructing
D
in a haphazard manner in the devastated area. The Governor of Bombay by
a proclamation issued under s. 93 of the Government of India Act.
1935,
enacted the City of Bombay (Building, Works and Reconstruction) Act, 1944.
Section 3 of the 1944-Act prohibited for a period of one year from the
date of the commencen1ent of the Act. the work of erecting, constructing, re-
constructing, etc.
of any building, wall or other structure situate within the
specified area except under the written permission of the Commissioner and in
E
accordance with the conditions that might be specified therein.
Section 8 of
the Act provided that the benefit of any written permission granted under s. 3
shall be annexed to and shall go with the o·wnership of the building in respect
of which it was granted and may be enforced by every person in whom that
ownership was vested.
In September 1947, the Municipal Commissioner granted written permission
(Exhibit A) to respondent No. 1 under s. 3 Of the 1944-Act to raise ten1porary
godowns on the land on condition that the Commissioner might at any time
F
direct the owner to pull down or remove the work forthwith or within such
time as may be prescribed.
One of the godowns erected by respondent No. 1 was leased out to appe1Iant
No. 1 in 1953 and the lease was extended from time to time till 1957. In that
year the State Government sanctioned a scheme called the TI>wn Pianning
Bombay City No. I scheme under the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and
the scheme came into operation on December l, 1957.
The final scheme
G
became a part and parcel of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954.
ResporuJ.;~nt
No. l issued a notice to the appellant calling upon it to quit and give vacant
possession of the godown leased out to it.
On September 19, 1953, the Muni-
cipal Cdrnmissioner, Greater Bombay, issued a notice (Exhibit B) to respondent
No. 1 calling upon it to pull down and remove the entire building for the cons-
truction of Vv'hich permission was granted to it in 1947.
Respondent No. 1,
in turn, iss"q.ed a notice to the appellant calling upon it to quit. The appellant
having refused to give vacant possession of the godown, respondent No. 1 filed
a suit for the appellant's eviction on the ground that the premises were r~quired
H
under s. 13(1) (hhh) of the ·Bombay Rents (Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates)
Control Act, 1947 for the immediate purpose of demolition ordered by the
local authority.
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 3 S.C.P..
A
The trial court ordered the appellant's eviction and delivery of immediate
possession of_ t{ie premises to respondent .No. 1.
The appellate court allowed
the appellant's appeal.
The High Court set aside the decree of the appellate
court.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
On appeal it was contended by the appellants that (i) the 1944-Act being c:
tempo~ary Act, lapsed on the expiry o~ two years. from April, 1946 and so the
Comm1ss1oner v.1a.s not competent to issue Exhibit B-Notice or to take step~:;
to enforce the conditions imposed by him under s. 3 \vhile granting written
permission to con§truct the p~e.rnises.
(ii) The Municipal Commissioner bavin.g
ceased to have statutory existence on the expiry of the 1944-Act
Exhibit
B-notice was a nullity, (iii) Eveh assuming that the Municipal Co~missioner
did not become non est on the expiry of the 1944·Act, the notice was ineffExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.