Demolition of building does not end tenancy

The Supreme Court has held that

destruction of a rented building does
not end the lease as long as the land
on which the building stood
continues to exist. There was conflict
of views in its earlier judgments
about the continuation of the lease
when the building itself was destroyed, for instance by
natural calamities. One leading judgement stated that the
tenancy ended with the destruction of the building.
Another held that the lease of a building included the
land on which it stood. Even if the building is destroyed
or demolished, the lease does not end as long as the land
beneath continued to exist. This latter view was upheld
by the larger bench of the Supreme Court in the case,
Shaha Ratangi vs Proposed Kumbhar Sons Hotel Ltd. In
this case, the tenant of a godown in a plot of land was
affected by the digging of basement for a hotel, which
bought the land. He moved the civil court which held that
his tenancy right had lapsed with the sale of the land to
the hotel. The appellate court and the Bombay High Court
dismissed his appeals. However, the Supreme Court set
aside those judgments and ruled that the lease continued
even after the sale of land because the interest of the
tenant was not purchased by the hotel. In the facts of the
case, the hotel was asked to pay ~20 lakh as
compensation to the lessee of the godown.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
University is a consumer in law
A university which has invested in
mutual funds is a consumer under
the Consumer Protection Act and can
seek compensation for deficiency in
service of the investment firm, the
Supreme Court has stated in the case,
Punjab University vs Unit Trust of
India. The university had joined the Institutional
Investors Special Fund Unit Scheme 1993 of UTI. The
university argued that there was a specific understanding
that the invested amount would be refunded with
minimum interest @ 13.5 per cent. However the yield was
below that. UTI challenged the maintainability of the
complaint of the university as it was not a consumer. The
Supreme Court rejected the argument stating that the
university made the investment for a benevolent purpose
and not for gain or profiteering; so it was a consumer.
However, it dismissed the petition because the maturity
amount depended upon the NAV. Just because the
maturity amount is below their expectation, they cannot
drag the service provider to court, the judgment said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sanction not necessary to prosecute offenders
An officer committing offenses like
breach of trust and cheating cannot
claim that he cannot be prosecuted
without the sanction of the
government as these acts are not in
discharge of his duties, the Supreme
Court stated in the judgment,
Chandan Kumar Basu vs State of Bihar. In this case, the IAS
officer who was deputed as Administrator-cum-
Managing Director of the Bihar State Housing Cooperative
Federation Ltd was accused of several offenses. When the
chief judicial magistrate took cognisance of them he
challenged it arguing that he could not be prosecuted as
under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, sanction
of the government was not obtained for launching
prosecution. The high court and the Supreme Court on
appeal, rejected his contention stating that it can be no
part of the duty of a public servant or acting in the
discharge of his official duties to commit any of the
offenses and the official status of the public servant can,
at best, only provide an opportunity for commission of
the offenses.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hospital to refund excess charges
The National Consumer Commission
has directed Fortis Health
Management (North) Ltd to refund
the excess it had charged on its
patient, Meenu Jain, holding the
hospital in Jaipur guilty of unfair
trade practice. The woman was taken
to the ventilator in a serious condition where five
injections costing ~18,990 each was administered daily for
five days. She was cured and the entire bill of ~7 lakh was
paid without protest. Later, it was found that the
injections cost only ~9,000 in the open market. The
hospital did not respond to her request for the bill of the
hospitals medical supplier. She moved the district
consumer forum for refund of the excess payment. It
asked the hospital to pay ~2 lakh. The state commission
dismissed the hospitals appeal. The National Commission
asked the hospital to refund half the price as it had
indirectly imposed unjustified and unreasonable
conditions on the patient. It blamed the patient also for
taking an opportunistic attitude. The commission
further remarked that though the hospital has every
right to earn profits from its pharmacy, it should be
reasonable or acceptable.
BRIEF CASEN
M J ANTONY
A weekly selection of key court orders