Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The grievance of the petitioners as put forward by Shri Y.V. Giri is three-fold. It is contended that sanction of the new building plan in case No. PCA/8-48/95 was obtained by suppressing the fact that the portion of the existing building was in possession of the tenants. According to the Counsel, had this fact been mentioned, in view of the provisions of Section 37(2) of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (in short the 'BRDA Act) and Section 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (in short, 'the BBC Act sanction would have been refused, for in terms of Section 37(2) where the proposed erection or alteration is in contravention of any provision of the BRDA Act or any regulation made thereunder or under any other law, which would include the BBC Act, sanction of the proposed plan has to be refused. Secondly, construction of a new building in the garb of addition is really a device to evict the petitioners which cannot be allowed in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 11 of the BBC Act. It is said that the private respondents have already instituted suit being Eviction Suit No. 50 of 1997 for eviction of the petitioners from the disputed premises in the Civil Court at Patna. Thirdly, as the petitioners were in possession of the disputed premises, they were entitled to notice and opportunity of hearing not only before passing the impugned order directing the private respondents to demolish the disputed premises failing which it would be demolished by the PRDA, but also at the stage of sanction. It has been contended that under Section 54 of the BRDA Act, which is the only provision of the Act under which PRDA has jurisdiction to demolish a building or part thereof, the new ongoing or complete construction alone can be demolished and not old building in respect of which there is no allegation of any contravention. No part of the existing building can therefore, be demolished under Section 54.

7. The legal position, I think, is settled that where the object of the demolition or re-construction of a building is eviction of the tenant such demolition cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Rent Control Acts have been enacted in different States to protect the interest of the tenants. In the State of Bihar, the BBC Act has been enacted "to regulate the letting of building and the rent of such buildings, and to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenants therefrom". Section 11 of the Act lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or law to the contrary, a tenant in possession of any building shall not be liable to be evicted therefrom "except execution of a decree passed by the Court" on one or more of the grounds specified thereunder, namely (a) breach of the conditions of tenancy including subletting without the consent of the landlord, (b) causing material deterioration in the condition of the building by acts of waste, negligence or default, (c) reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation, (d) default in payment of rent, (e) expiry of the period of tenancy and (f) carrying out any building work at the instance of the Government or the Municipality, etc. While dealing with the cases of eviction on the ground of reconstruction of the building, under the relevant Rent Control Acts, the Courts have often declines to grant relief to the landlord where, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the real object was found to be eviction of the tenant. Thus, if the case of the petitioners that the real object of demolition is their eviction, is true, I would have no hesitation in striking down the impugned orders. In the facts of the case, however, I do not find any substance in the petitioner's case. From the materials on record, it appears that a two-storied building on the front portion of the land appertaining to plot No. 821 was constructed earlier pursuant to sanction of the building plan in case No. 593/80. A chunk of land on the rear side however, remained vacant. If the landlords, i.e., the private respondents wanted to utilise the vacant land by constructing a multi-storied building and such construction necessitated demolition of part of the existing building, it cannot be said that the object was eviction of the tenants in possession of the particular portion of the existing building. It was just a matter of chance or co-incidence that the petitioners happened to be the tenants.

8. From the inspection report, Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it appears that the old building comprised of two stores (G+1), whereas the new proposed building is multi-storied building comprising of seven stories (G+7). The building plan provides for addition of stories (2nd to 7th) on the existing G+1 building and construction of G+7 stories on other portion, which apparently means vacant portion. The question is whether the real object behind the construction of a seven-storied building is eviction of the petitioners? If the landlord wants to make addition to the existing building by constructing more stories on it or utilise the vacant land by making new construction on it, the object by no stretch can be said to be mala fide. The object rather is to make better use of the resources and earn more money. As far as the demolition of the portion of the existing building is concerned, it appears, the same become necessary as in terms of the Building bye-laws, in the case of multi-storied building of seven stories, a larger area has to be left vacant as 'set-back' area and where requisite set-back area is not provided for, the building plan cannot be sanctioned. This legal position was not disputed at the bar nor it was contended that if a seven-storied building (G+7) had to be constructed on the land the particular portion of the building would not fall within the 'set-back' area. As stated above, it was a matter of chance that the petitioners happened to be the tenants in the particular shops of the building which fell in the set-back area of the proposed building. If the private respondents had not undertaken to demolish them, in order to provide suitable set back, the PRDA would have declined to accord its sanction which obviously would not have been in their interest. I do not think the owner of a building can be denied right to make addition to the existing building merely on the ground that such addition may jeopardise the possession of a tenant. Section 11 of the BBC Act prohibits 'eviction' except pursuant to a Court's decree on one or more grounds mentioned therein but where the object is not eviction as such, the provisions would not be attracted. The provisions of Section 11, in my opinion, cannot be invoked to pre-empt a landlord from bona fide augmenting his resources by making addition to the existing building. Of course, the ideal situation would be that after the constructions are complete the old tenants are adjusted. But, this would depend on the personal relationship between the landlord and the tenant and the latter agreeing to the terms. In the facts of the case, I do not find any substance in the contention that the respondents got the building plan sanctioned in 1995 in order to evict the petitioners.

10. Shri Giri in support of the contention that the private respondents had suppressed the fact that the disputed portion was in possession of the tenants which amounted to material misrepresentation within the meaning of Section 38, relied on the words "or under any other law" occurring in Section 37(2) and submitted that as the proposed erection would be at a tangent with the provisions of Section 11 of the BBC Act and therefore, in contravention thereof, if the fact regarding petitioners' tenancy had been disclosed, the Vice-Chairman would have refused to give his sanction. The point is whether demolition of a building which is in possession of tenant amounts to his eviction and, secondly, whether it amounts to contravention ,of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. As I have indicated above, where the teal object of demolition is eviction of the tenant, the case would stand on different footing. Any action done in bad faith cannot be sustained. I have already dealt with this aspect of the matter and held that the action of the private respondents was not in bad faith. The question is whether grant of sanction resulting in demolition of part of existing building amounts to contravention of Section 11 of the BBC Act? In my opinion, the expression "contravention of any other law" in Section 37(2) has to be understood ejusdem generis to mean contravention of some law having nexus with the construction of buildings. The Bihar Municipal Act, 1922 contains regulatory provisions relating to construction of buildings under sub-head 'Buildings' in Chapter V. The Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 also contains provisions relating to building control in Chapter XIV of the Act. The Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982 too contains provisions relating to housing and development Schemes. Particular reference may be made to Section 29 of the Act. There may be other cognate legislations on the subject the reference of which is not presently available. If the building plan submitted under Section 36 of the BRDA Act is found to be contravening the provisions of any of these Acts or such other Acts holding the field, apart from the provisions of the BRDA Act or regulations thereunder, the sanction of the plan shall be refused. Occurring in the context, as it does, I do not think, the expression "any other law" in Section 37 can be interpreted to also mean law relating to eviction of tenants under the Rent Control Act.