Rent Control Act Will Not Bar Demolition Of Building As Per Municipal Law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that Rent Control Act would not prevail over an Act which deals with municipal functions.

The bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and  AS Bopanna observed that they operate in separate spheres as both have different objectives to be achieved.

The Act deals with the municipal functions which are wider and welfare-oriented towards the residents of the area of Corporation, whereas the Rent Act has a limited application for determining the rights of land owner and tenant, the bench said.

In this case, the Karnataka High Court had held that Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 has overriding effect under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 as statutory protection is granted to the tenant. In this case, the petitioner before the High Court had challenged the demolition of the building he was occupying pursuant to proceedings under Section 322 which was initiated on the ground that the building was in dilapidated condition, unsafe and dangerous.  The court held that the proceeding under Section 322 of the Act was not permissible.

In appeal, it was contended that both the Acts operate in their assigned separate fields and therefore, it cannot be said that the Rent Act has the preference over the Act.

Agreeing with the said contention, the court observed:

Both the statutes are enacted by the State of Karnataka. The Act deals with the municipal functions which are wider and welfare-oriented towards the residents of the area of Corporation, whereas the Rent Act has a limited application for determining the rights of land owner and tenant. Both operate in separate spheres as both have different objectives to be achieved. (Para 38)

The court also observed that there can be a situation in law where the same statute is treated as a special statute vis-à-vis one legislation and again as a general statute vis-à-vis another legislation.

"Between the Act and the Rent Act, the Act is a general statute enacted as a third tier of local Government administration. The functions of the Corporation, inter alia, includes the regulation and maintenance of the land and building, hygiene and health, public streets and other for a larger section of the inhabitants falling in the municipal area, whereas the Rent Act deals with the issues between the landlord and the tenant conferring right to the landlord to seek eviction and correspondingly provide protection to the tenant. Therefore, the finding of the High Court that Rent Act would prevail over the Act is clearly erroneous as both legislations operate in separate distinct spheres having different objectives in mind." (Para 40)

While setting aside the High Court judgment, the court, however, found that the building was demolished without giving clear three days' notice. In view of this, the court directed to compensate the plaintiff with the damages of Rs.5 lakhs.

Also from the judgment :

Statutory Tenant Cannot Seek Repossession After Demolition Of Building Under Section 108B(e) Of Transfer Of Property Act : Supreme Court

Click here to Read/Download Judgment