Raj Rewal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Plaintiff- Raj Rewal

Defendant- Union of India & ORS.

28 May 2019

Statutes Referred-

• The Copyright Act, 1957
• The Constitution of India

Cases Referred-

• Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India 117 (2005) DLT 717, 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del
• Meikle v. Maufe (1941) 3 AII ER 144

Facts of the Case

1. Raj Rewal (the plaintiff), was known as an eminent architect nationally and internationally who has known for his many creations like- hall of nations, the Nehru Pavilion, the Asian games village, national institute of immunology, SCOPE office complex, the library for Indian parliament, all of these are in Delhi, whereas he also created the Lisbon Ismaili center, in Portugal, the Indian embassy in Beijing, so in the above cases, the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the copyright of the architectural works.
2. Similarly, the hall of nations in New Delhi was also designed by the plaintiff which was constructed in the year of 1972 to promote commercial activities covering the area across 2,00,000 sq. ft. which also made it the first “ large span concrete structure” in the world.
3. But later on, in the year of 2016, the Indian trade promotion organization (ITPO) suggested demolishing the hall of nations complex so that the ‘integrated Exhibition-cum-Convention Centre’ can be built. Instead of several interventions by the plaintiff to the judicial and administrative bodies, the complex was still destroyed.
4. So that, the plaintiff filed a suit against ITPO and union of India for the demolishing of the hall of nations under section 57 of the copyright act, 1957, claiming that the defendants should compensate the plaintiff by recreating the piece of art or the work done by the plaintiff in the same way as the way it was earlier and should be at the same location.

Issues raised

1. An architect or an author of any kind of artistic work whether it can be in a form of a building or any structure having any kind of unique design or character resembling a piece of art, having copyright therein, has the right to retrain the owner from demolishing or modifying the building or structure and can also demand compensation for the same by reconstructing the premises according to the appropriate design and architectural drawings to maintain its originality the way it was constructed back then.
2. Secondly, the major issue was arising was that the above law was relating to artistic work or regarding the copyright of the work, but it does not interpret the land laws, or the land belonging rights.

Parties contention:

Plaintiff

1. According to the section 57 under the copyright act, 1957 states that the creator has the right to claim the copyright rights of his creation/work. Or to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or any other changes in the said work is done. Such kind of activities are considered as harmful to their reputation or honor.
2. So, in this case, the plaintiff claims the damages being caused to him due to the demolition of the hall of nations which was his creation and wants to get it reconstructed as it was in the form of compensation. As he takes the defense under section 57. This simply states that the architect is the owner of the design of the building and that design should not be used without the architect’s consent.

Defendant

1. Section 57 only provides authorization for the restrain against damage, distortion, mutilation, modification of the work but does not permit the creator to seek injunction for recreation of the work.
2. Then, on the other hand, section 57(b) of the copyright act states that the rights were only in order of distortion, mutilation, or modification of the work and will not be considered for the destruction of the work when the work ceases to exist and is not visible.

Judgment

1. The conflict is between two separate rights, firstly, the rights of the architect under section 57, and secondly the landowner’s rights for their property. So, if we see that plaintiff’s right is a statutory right under the copyright act, but on the other hand, the land/property right was a constitutional right which falls under Article 300A, which must prevail over the statutory rights.
2. So, the court observed that the architect can claim relief concerning distortion, mutilation, or modification concerning such work if there is any harm to the creator’s honor and reputation. But in this case, the destruction does not prove to harm the architect’s reputation and honor. Therefore, the court also held that the rights of the architects were only limited to modifications made to the building because the architect is the author of the modified building.
3. So, according to section 52 of the copyright act, 1957 which states that certain acts are not considered as infringement of copyright. And section 57 will not be interpreted as a restriction to the destruction of the building. And the owner of the premises cannot be restrained from demolishing the building and making the other one in that place. Thus, the owner of the building/premises has full fledge power to dispose of or destroy the property if he/she wants so. Nobody can restrain him from doing so.
4. So, the plaintiff or the architect of the building is not entitled to any right under section 57 of the copyright act to object the demolition of building or to claim any damages for that. So, in the absence of any right, the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit held dismissed.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law was applied here that the land owner has the absolute right over his premises and the owner has full fledge right to exercise his basic duties over his premises.

Comment

The court judgment was appropriate because the architect has only made the structure, but the place belongs to somebody else who has full authority to his property. He/she can use their premises as they wanted to, nobody can restrain them from doing so.

In the above case, the architect only has the power or authority to modify the building and not responsible for the decision of destruction of that building. That right is only exercised by the owner of the land or the property.

For example:-

A owns a piece of land, on which he wanted to construct a house for him. So, he contacted a builder, so in that case, after the construction of that building, all rights are in the hands of the owner not in the hands of builder, if A wants to demolish his house he can do it, the builder or any other party can not restrain him from doing so.

Conclusion

To conclude this case the bench discussed all the aspects of copyright challenged by the plaintiff and come to the outcome that the rights of the owner have the constitutional right whereas the plaintiff exercises the statutory right and constitutional right always prevails over the statutory right.

So that the apex court held that the owner has full right over his property and the plaintiff has no right to restrain the owner of the property from demolishing the property. The plaintiff has limited power of only modifying his creation.

By Krishna Das