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 Rs 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 Rs 18,990 each was administered daily for five days. She was cured and the entire bill of Rs 7 lakh was paid without protest. Later, it was found that the injections cost only Rs 9,000 in the open market. The hospital did not respond to her request for the bill of the hospital's medical supplier. She moved the district consumer forum for refund of the excess payment. It asked the hospital to pay Rs 2 lakh. The state commission dismissed the hospital's 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."
