RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH. LRS. versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLIES) & ORS. on 8 February 2018

544

[2018] 2 S.C.R.

ARAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH. LRS.

v.

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLIES) &ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 10449 of 2011)

B

FEBRUARY 08, 2018

[KURIAN JOSEPH ANDMOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, RentCand Eviction) Act, 1972 – s.16(5)(a) – Allotment and release ofvacant building – Whether a Review u/s.16(5)(a) of the Act in respectof an order regarding vacancy is maintainable – Held: The wholepurpose of s.16(1) is for “allotment and release of vacant building” –Unless there is a finding regarding vacancy, there cannot be eitherDallotment or release – It is a pre-condition for an order u/s.16(1)(a) or (b) – The whole purpose of s.16(5)(a) is to see whether theDistrict Magistrate has passed a lawful order in the matter of eitherallotment or release – The question of release or allotment arisesonly if there is a vacancy – Once the finding is that there is novacancy, the same is certainly open to be pursued by way of reviewEu/s.16(5)(a) as otherwise, the order would seal the fate of a landlordor an applicant for allotment – That is not the purpose of the Actand the scheme of the provision.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

FHELD: 1. The whole purpose of Section 16(1) of the UttarPradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent andEviction) Act, 1972, as the title indicates, is for “allotment andrelease of vacant building”. Unless there is a finding regardingvacancy, there cannot be either allotment or release. It is a pre-condition for an order under Section 16(1)(a) or (b). The appellantGsubmitted that the only order that is open to review is an orderpassed under Section 16(1) (a) or (b) either for release or forallotment, since those are the only two contingencies dealt withunder Section 16(1). If the technical argument advanced by theappellant is adopted, the order attains finality and there is noHprovision under the Act to challenge the same. That would defeat the whole purpose of the Act and the contention is also againstthe scheme of the Act. The whole purpose of Section 16(5)(a) isto see whether the District Magistrate has passed a lawful orderin the matter of either allotment or release. The question of releaseor allotment arises only if there is a vacancy. Once the finding isthat there is no vacancy, the same is certainly open to be pursuedby way of review under Section 16(5)(a) as otherwise, the orderwould seal the fate of a landlord or an applicant for allotment.That is not the purpose of the Act and the scheme of the provision.Therefore, the District Magistrate was justified in invoking itsreview jurisdiction under Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 16 of theAct. [Paras 4, 5] [546-F-H; 547-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10449of 2011.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2009 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34930 of 2004.

S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mangal Prasad, Ankur Yadav, Ms. AshaGopalan Nair, Advs. for the Appellants.

Ranjit Kumar, P.N. Mishra. Sr. Advs., Binu Tamta, Rishi RajSharma, Ms. Saumya Jaykaran Singh, Ankur Prakash, Ashutosh KumarSharma, Vinay Garg, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. 1. Whether a Review under Section 16(5)(a) ofThe Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent andEviction) Act, 1972 (in short, “the Act”) in respect of an order regardingvacancy is maintainable, is the only question of law arising forconsideration in this case. Section 16(5)(a) reads as under :- “Where the landlord or any other person claiming to be alawful occupant of the building or any part thereof comprisedin the allotment or release order satisfies the DistrictMagistrate that such order was not made in accordance withclause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of sub-section(1), the District Magistrate may review the order:

Provided that no application under this clause shall beentertained later than seven days after the eviction of suchperson.”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2. Sh. S. R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellants, submits that the only order that is open to review is an orderpassed under Section 16(1)(a) or (b) either for release or for allotment,since those are the only two contingencies dealt with under Section 16(1).Section 16 reads as follows :- B“Allotment and release of vacant building – (1) Subject tothe provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate may byorder –

(a) require the landlord to let any building which is or hasfallen vacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of suchCbuilding but not appurtenant land alone, to any personspecified in the order (to be called an allotment order); or (b) release the whole or any part of such building, or anyland appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord (to becalled a release order):

D[Provided that in the case of a vacancy referred to in sub-section(4) of Section 12, the District Magistrate shall givean opportunity to the landlord or the tenant, as the casemay be, of showing that the said section is not attracted tohis case before making an order under clause (a)]”E3. Sh. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the party-respondents, points out that the District Magistrate, if passes a wrongorder regarding a vacancy, the same is always open to review, beingonly statutory remedy.

4. The whole purpose of Section 16(1) of the Act, as the titleFindicates, is for “allotment and release of vacant building”. Unlessthere is a finding regarding vacancy, there cannot be either allotment orrelease. It is a pre-condition for an order under Section 16(1)(a) or (b).If we adopt the technical argument advanced by Sh.S.R.Singh, learnedsenior counsel, the order attains finality and there is no provision underthe Act to challenge the same. In our view, that would defeat the wholeGpurpose of the Act and the contention is also against the scheme of theAct. The whole purpose of Section 16(5)(a) is to see whether the DistrictMagistrate has passed a lawful order in the matter of either allotment orrelease. The question of release or allotment arises only if there is avacancy. Once the finding is that there is no vacancy, the same is certainlyHopen to be pursued by way of review under Section 16(5)(a) as otherwise, the order would seal the fate of a landlord or an applicant for allotment.That is not the purpose of the Act and the scheme of the provision.

5. Therefore, we are in agreement with the view taken by theHigh Court that the District Magistrate was justified in invoking its reviewjurisdiction under Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 16 of the Act.

6. Having said that, we find that there are certain other facts alsowhich should be taken note of. There is a civil suit pending between theparties, being Suit No. 375 of 1981 before the II Additional Civil Judge,Varanasi. That pertains to the cancellation of a sale deed said to havebeen executed by the son of Respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellants.The premises now occupied by the appellants is the same premises whichis the subject matter of the suit.

7. Though Sh. S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel, submits that thisCourt, having found that review jurisdiction is properly exercised, thematter should be left to the authority concerned to consider whether therelease would be granted or not since several factors are taken note ofwhile granting the order, having regard to the detailed discussion madeby the High Court in the impugned order, having regard to the fact thatthe landlord has been pursuing the litigation for release since 1978, andthe further fact that he is the beneficiary in the review, we are of theview that it is just, fair, reasonable and proper that the proceedings underthe Act be given a quietus. Ordered accordingly.

8. However, we make it clear that the rights of the parties inter sewill be decided in Suit No. 375 of 1981. Accordingly, this appeal isdisposed of with a direction to the trial court concerned to dispose ofSuit No. 375 of 1981 expeditiously and in any case, within a period of sixmonths from today. We make it clear that the suit will be tried on its ownmerits. The submission that the parties will cooperate for the expeditiousdisposal of the case is recorded.

9. We also make it clear that the status quo with regard topossession shall continue till the suit is finally disposed of by the trialcourt.

No costs.

Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H