Nine-judge Bench poser on cessed buildings
Can privately owned resources be considered “material resources of the community?”
The Maharashtra government came up with a law for acquiring old and dilapidated buildings that were unsafe as the tenants were sitting tight over the properties and landlords had no money for repairs, the Supreme Court observed on Tuesday while examining whether privately owned resources can be considered "material resources of the community".
Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud made the observations while dealing with a host of petitions filed by landlords who are up in arms against the State law.
The CJI-headed nine-judge constitution bench is considering the vexed question arising from petitions about whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, which is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
Article 39(b) makes it obligatory for the State to frame a policy the ensure "that the ownership and control of material resources of the community are so distributed as to best subserve common good".
The CJI gave the example of private mines and said, "They may be private mines. But in a broader sense, these are material resources of the community. The title may rest in a private individual but for the purpose of Article 39 (b), our readings should not be constricted."
"Take these buildings in Mumbai. Technically, you are right that these are privately owned buildings, but what was the reason for the law (MHADA Act)... we are not commenting on the legality or the validity of the law that will be tested independently," the CJI said.
"The reason why the state legislature came out with this (Act) was that these are old buildings of the 1940s...With a kind of monsoon in Mumbai, these buildings get dilapidated because of the saline weather," Justice Chandrachud said.
He referred to the meagre rent being paid by tenants, especially in Mumbai, living in these old buildings.
"Because, honestly, the fact that the rent was so meagre that the landlord said no, they had no money at all actually to repair them...and (with) the tenants sitting tight, no one would have the wherewithal to repair the whole building and hence the legislature came up (with the Act)," the CJI said.
Elaborating on the phrase 'material resources of the community', the bench said the community has a vital interest, and if a building falls, the community is directly affected.
There are around 13,000 cessed buildings in Mumbai which need restoration or reconstruction.
However, their redevelopment is often delayed due to differences between tenants or between owners and tenants on appointing a developer.
The Property Owners Association has challenged Chapter VIII-A of the Constitution claiming that the provisions discriminate against the owners and violate their right to equality under Article 14.
As many as 16 petitions, including the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners Association (POW), was heard by the bench which also comprised Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. The lead plea was filed by POW way back in 1992 and it was referred thrice to larger benches of five and seven judges before being referred to a nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.