2015 (11) TMI 1798 - SC - Indian Laws

Violation of terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement - agreement individually entered into with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) by constructing a multi-storeyed residential building on the plots allotted to them - whether the construction made by them is contrary to the plan sanctioned by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and thereby violated the lease-cum-sale agreement with the BDA - HELD THAT - On a plain reading of condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement that it is breached or violated under three circumstances (i) If the plot is sub-divided or (ii) If more than one building is constructed thereon for the purposes of human habitation or (iii) If an apartment whether attached to the building or not is used as a shop or a warehouse etc. Plot is sub-divided - HELD THAT - There is no allegation that either Sadananda Gowda or Jeevaraj have subdivided their respective plot. The allegation (though denied) is to the contrary which is that they have amalgamated their plots. Assuming the allegation is substantiated it can be said at best that they have acted contrary to the letter dated 24th September 2009 but there is no breach or violation of condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement. The effect if any of acting contrary to the letter dated 24th September 2009 has not been canvassed or agitated. In any event the case set up by Nagalaxmi Bai is not of a violation of the letter dated 24th September 2009 but of a violation of condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement - Under these circumstances frankly we fail to understand how it has been found by the High Court that amalgamation of the two plots (assuming it to be so) is a breach or violation of the lease-cum-sale agreement. Be that as it may factually there is no subdivision of the plots and to that extent there is no violation of condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement. If more than one building is constructed thereon for the purposes of human habitation - If an apartment whether attached to the building or not is used as a shop or a warehouse etc. - HELD THAT - It is nobody s case that more than one building has been constructed on either of the plots or that the building or any part thereof is used as a shop or warehouse etc. Therefore this need not detain us any further more particularly since the buildings are not yet completely constructed. The High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the buildings constructed on the two plots were not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The buildings were and are still under construction and it is too early to say that there has been a violation of the sanctioned plan. No doubt there are some deviations as pointed out by the BBMP but that is a matter that can certainly be attended to by Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj on the one hand and the BBMP on the other. The mere existence of some deviations in the buildings does not lead to any definite conclusion that there is either a breach or a violation of condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement or the building plan sanctioned by the BBMP - Undoubtedly there are some deviations in the construction which will surely be taken care of by the BBMP which has categorically stated on affidavit that an occupancy certificate will be given only if the building constructed conforms to the sanctioned plan and the building bye-laws. There is no good reason to uphold the order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition and it is accordingly set aside.

Issues Involved
1. Violation of lease-cum-sale agreement terms.
2. Amalgamation of plots and construction of a composite building.
3. Compliance with the building plan sanctioned by the BBMP.
4. Alleged use of the building for commercial purposes.
5. Public interest litigation and its bona fides.
6. Jurisdiction and discretion of the High Court.

Detailed Analysis

1. Violation of Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement Terms
The primary issue was whether the appellants violated Clause 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement, which prohibited sub-dividing the property or constructing more than one dwelling house. The Court concluded that there was no violation of the lease-cum-sale agreement as there was no sub-division of the plots, and no more than one building was constructed on each plot.

2. Amalgamation of Plots and Construction of a Composite Building
The High Court found that the two plots were amalgamated and a homogenous structure was constructed, violating the lease-cum-sale agreement. However, the Supreme Court noted that the amalgamation of plots was denied, and even if assumed, it did not breach Clause 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement. The construction was still in progress, and modifications could be made before obtaining an occupancy certificate.

3. Compliance with the Building Plan Sanctioned by the BBMP
The High Court held that the initial and modified building plans sanctioned by the BBMP were in violation of the lease-cum-sale agreement. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the buildings were under construction, and deviations could be corrected. The BBMP confirmed that an occupancy certificate would be issued only if the construction conformed to the sanctioned plan and building regulations.

4. Alleged Use of the Building for Commercial Purposes
The High Court assumed that the building was intended for commercial use based on photographs showing shutters. The Supreme Court found this assumption premature, as the building was incomplete. The BBMP would ensure that the building was used for residential purposes before granting an occupancy certificate.

5. Public Interest Litigation and Its Bona Fides
The Supreme Court left open the question of the bona fides of the public interest litigation filed by Nagalaxmi Bai. It noted that procedural technicalities should not obstruct public interest litigation, but such litigation should not be directed against specific individuals unless necessary.

6. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the High Court
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the BDA to take action against the appellants, effectively pre-empting the BDA's discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory authorities should be allowed to exercise their discretion independently. The High Court's mandamus directing the BDA to act was set aside as it bypassed procedural requirements and did not provide reasons for taking over the statutory authority's functions.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, finding no violation of the lease-cum-sale agreement or the sanctioned building plan. The appeals were allowed, and the directions given by the High Court were deemed unsustainable in law.

← Previous Next →