9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether compliance with sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 22 of Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 is mandatory. 2. Whether the violation of these sub-rules invalidates the final town planning scheme. 3. Whether a tenant or sub-tenant is entitled to notice under these sub-rules. Summary: Issue 1: Compliance with Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 22 The Supreme Court examined whether the compliance with sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 22 of the Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 is mandatory. The Court held that the issuance of special notice of at least three clear days duration and giving sufficient opportunity to the person affected to put forth his views of the scheme are mandatory. The Court emphasized that these sub-rules subserve the principles of natural justice to avoid arbitrariness offending Art. 14 and to be just and fair procedures satisfying the mandate of Art. 21. Non-compliance would render the scheme illegal. Issue 2: Violation and Invalidity of the Final Scheme The Court concluded that non-compliance with the requirements of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 21 does vitiate the scheme. The use of 'shall' in the given circumstances was construed to be mandatory and not directory. The Court stated that public interest is always a paramount consideration, and since non-compliance injuriously affects the right to property of the owner or interest of the tenant or sub-tenant, it shall be construed to be mandatory. Issue 3: Entitlement of Notice to Tenant or Sub-tenant The Court held that a tenant or a sub-tenant is a person interested and is entitled to notice. Under s. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease creates a right or an interest in the enjoyment of the demised property, and a tenant or a sub-tenant is entitled to remain in possession until the lease is duly terminated and eviction takes place in accordance with law. Therefore, a tenant or a sub-tenant in possession of a tenement in the Town Planning Scheme is a person interested within the meaning of Rules 21(3) & (4) of the Rules. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the respondent is directed to provide an alternative premises by allotting a suitable shop within the city to the appellant and to put it in possession thereof. Until then, the appellant is allowed to occupy the demised shop. The decree of the Courts below was upheld in other respects, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
