High Court of Delhi

Raj Rewal vs Union Of India & Ors

MANU/DE/1817/2019

28.05.2019

Intellectual Property Rights

An architect of building/structure has no right to restrian demolition of structure or to claim any damages for demolition

The suit has been filed, seeking mandatory injunction against Union of India and Indian Trade Promotion Organization (ITPO) to compensate the Plaintiff by recreating the work of architecture in the Hall of Nations and Nehru Pavilion at the same location or at any other location in Delhi which is equally prominent as the earlier location of the said buildings, under the direct supervision of the Plaintiff.

The question for consideration is, whether an Architect, as author of artistic work of architecture in the form of a building or structure having an artistic character or design and having a copyright therein, upon the owner of the land on which building is constructed choosing to demolish the said building to construct another building in its place, has a right to restrain the owner from doing so and if the building has been demolished, to demand compensation therefor including by reconstruction of a building in accordance with the architectural drawings or plans by reference to which the building or structure was originally constructed.

The special rights of the author of an architectural work cannot be interpreted as being a restriction on the right to property of the owner of the land and building and entitling the author to restrain the owner of the land and building in which the architectural work has been expressed, from better utilizing his land or building by removing the existing building and constructing new building on the land. Rights conferred on the owner / author of a copyright conferred by the Copyright Act, 1957 have to be necessarily read harmoniously with rights of others in whom the property / medium in which the right of the author or owner of the copyright is expressed. Artistic work or architectural work are not scarce and more can be produced. On the contrary land is scarce as no more is being produced.

Section 57(b) of Act has to be necessarily interpreted as entitling the author / owner of a copyright to only restrain the owner / occupier of the building from dealing with the work of architecture in the building to make the building look otherwise than as designed by the author / architect. The public viewing the building in such altered form is unlikely to know that the alternation therein is not the work of the architect to whom the architecture of the building is attributed and such altered architecture of the building may prejudicially affect the honour and reputation of the architect. Thus, the embargo is only to making the copyrighted work look something other than as created and not against effacing the copyright work. Just like the purchaser of a work of art, copyright wherein vests in the artist, is entitled not to display the same, so also the owner of a building, even if an acclaimed piece of architecture, cannot be restrained from demolishing the same and making a new building in its place.

The implementation / transformation into a building of the work of architecture is governed by other laws viz. the laws relating to town planning, building bye-laws, environmental laws and laws protecting the rights of owners of adjoining buildings. It is thus not necessary that the building or the structure constructed is always a true reflection of the drawings or the designs authored by the architect. Though the architects are expected to provide the drawings and designs in compliance of such laws but in a given case, it may not be so and the modifications, which the owners are required to make in complying with other laws or for other valid reasons, cannot be objected to by the architect. Similarly, it may happen that during the course of construction, the building bye-laws change, requiring modifications to be made.

The only relief which perhaps the architect can have under Section 57 of the Act is to restrain the owner from claiming the modified work also to be of the architect who had designed the building, as constructed in the original form.

The requirements of urban planning outweigh the moral rights of an architect. Similarly, technical reasons to modify the building, economic reasons justifying modifications to the building and the necessity to obtain an authorisation to build, all prevail over the moral rights. The architect cannot demand the intangibility of work because it would violate the right of ownership and the principles of freedom of commerce. Similarly, the functionality of the building has to necessarily outweigh the interest of the architect on the preservation of integrity. Thus, the owner of the building has full power to dispose it off and to destroy it.

The question of "reconstruction", even if in accordance with the architectural drawings or plans by reference to which the building or structure was originally constructed, would arise only if the demolition of the building constructed in accordance with the architectural drawings or plans were to be not prohibited by the Act. To hold that such demolition is prohibited by Section 57(1)(b) of the Act would render otiose Section 52(1)(x) of Act permitting such reconstruction. It is settled principle of law that no part of the statute should be read in a manner so as to render another part thereof redundant or otiose.

There is no right in the Plaintiff as architect of the building/structure, to, under Section 57 of Act, object to the demolition of the work or to claim any damages for such demolition. In the absence of any right, the plaintiff has no cause of action for the suit. Resultantly, the suit is dismissed.

Tags : Architect Building Right

Share :