AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img






Vjjay Kumar Sonkar Vs. District Judge [1993] INSC 435 (13 October 1993)

PUNCHHI, M.M. PUNCHHI, M.M. SINGH N.P. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC (1) 646

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

ORDER 1.Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 provide as follows:

(1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate may by order (a) require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant, or a part of such building but not appurtenant land alone, to any person specified in the order (to be called an allotment order); or (b) release the whole or any part of such building, or any land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord (to be called a release order):

Provided that in the case of a vacancy referred to in subsection (4) of Section 12, the District Magistrate shall give an opportunity to the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, of showing that the said section is not attracted to his case before making an order under clause (a).

(2) No release order under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be made unless the District Magistrate is satisfied that the building or any part thereof or any land appurtenant thereto is bona fide required, either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction, by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade, calling or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the object of the trust, or that the building or any part thereof is in a dilapidated condition, and is required for purposes of demolition, and new construction, or that any land appurtenant to it is required by him for constructing one or more new buildings or for dividing it into several plots with a view to the sale thereof for purposes of construction of new buildings:

Provided that no application under this sub- section shall be entertained for the purposes of a charitable trust the objects of which provide for discrimination in respect of its beneficiaries on the ground of religion, caste or place of birth.

2.The distinction between the two orders envisaged in sub-section (1) is well marked. In the case of an allotment order the result is brought about by a dialogue between the prospective tenant and the District Magistrate, thereafter, under whose orders the landlord is required to let any building to the prospective tenant. On the other hand in the case of a release order the dialogue takes place between the District Magistrate and the landlord and the prospective tenant does not figure in it at all. The allotment order and the release order, as the case may be, being mutually exclusive, have separate areas of operation permitting no encroachment of one over the other. The mere fact that the focal point is the District Magistrate from whom flow the 648 respective orders is of no consequence. It is on this understanding of the law that the High Court relying on its Full Bench decision in the case of Talib Husain v. 1st Addl. District Judge' rejected the prayer of the prospective tenant that he had a right to be heard in a release application of the landlord based as it was on the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 16 on ground of bona fide requirement. On the allowing of the release application the premises in question ceased to be allotable and since the District Magistrate, thereafter would have no jurisdiction to make an allotment thereof the prospective tenant consequently has no right to resist the landlord in release proceedings. The view of the High Court seems to us to be correct in the circumstances of the case as also in law because as of today no allotment order subsists in favour of the appellant and yet he continues to be in possession. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The appellant is directed to vacate the premises within one month. It is made clear that he is not debarred from seeking another allotment order of any other premises if he has any such right in accordance with law. The appellant shall pay costs to the respondents throughout which we quantify at Rs 5000.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys