1977 (4) TMI 183 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice (Exh. 'B') issued by the Municipal Commissioner.
2. Competence of the Municipal Commissioner to issue the notice after the expiry of the Bombay Act, 1944.
3. Whether the notice (Exh. 'B') constituted an order under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Control Act, 1947.
4. Requirement of the premises for the immediate purpose of demolition.
5. Suspension and variation of the Town Planning Scheme.
6. Authority to evict the tenant under the Town Planning Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice (Exh. 'B'):
The appellants argued that the notice (Exh. 'B') issued by the Municipal Commissioner was invalid because it was based on the conditions specified in a temporary statute, the Bombay Act, 1944, which had expired. The Supreme Court held that the rights and obligations arising from the conditions imposed by the Municipal Commissioner while granting the permit (Exh. 'A') were of a permanent nature and did not lapse with the expiry of the Act. The notice was valid and enforceable under the statutory provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954.

2. Competence of the Municipal Commissioner:
The appellants contended that the Municipal Commissioner ceased to have statutory authority after the expiry of the Bombay Act, 1944. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the Municipal Commissioner, being a creature of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, continued to have authority to enforce the conditions imposed under the Bombay Act, 1944. The conditions were annexed to the ownership of the building and survived the expiry of the Act.

3. Whether the Notice Constituted an Order:
The appellants argued that the notice (Exh. 'B') did not constitute an order under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Control Act, 1947, as it was not based on any statutory power. The Supreme Court found that the notice was issued under the Special Regulation No. 36, which became a part of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954. The notice had its genesis in the statutory provisions and constituted an order within the meaning of Section 13(1)(hhh).

4. Requirement of the Premises for Immediate Demolition:
The appellants argued that the premises were not required for the immediate purpose of demolition as the town planning scheme was in abeyance. The Supreme Court held that the requirement for immediate demolition was satisfied as long as the order of demolition was issued by a competent authority. The statement of the Sub-Engineer regarding the general policy of the Corporation was irrelevant, as the instructions were based on past periods and did not affect the current requirement.

5. Suspension and Variation of the Scheme:
The appellants contended that the scheme had been suspended and varied, making the notice (Exh. 'B') ineffective. The Supreme Court found that the suspension of certain regulations did not amount to the withdrawal or abandonment of the scheme. The regulations relevant to the case, including Regulation No. 36, were specifically saved. The proposed variation of the scheme had not materialized and was of no legal consequence until carried into effect.

6. Authority to Evict the Tenant:
The appellants argued that it was the local authority, not the landlord, who had the power to evict the tenant under the Town Planning Act. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that nothing in the provisions indicated that only the local authority could evict the tenant. The landlord had the right to evict the tenant under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Control Act, 1947, and could seek reasonable facilities to comply with the notice under Section 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Municipal Commissioner had the authority to issue the notice (Exh. 'B'), which constituted an order under Section 13(1)(hhh) of the Bombay Rents Control Act, 1947. The premises were required for the immediate purpose of demolition, and the suspension or variation of the scheme did not affect the validity of the notice. The landlord had the authority to evict the tenant under the relevant statutory provisions. The respondents agreed not to evict the appellants until the end of the year 1977 unless required by the Municipal Commissioner to implement the scheme.