Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1798 - SC - Indian LawsViolation 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.
|