Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10449 OF 2011
RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
(CIVIL SUPPLIES) & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Whether a Review under Section 16(5)(a) of
The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short,
“the Act”) in respect of an order regarding
vacancy is maintainable, is the only question of
law arising for consideration in this case.
Section 16(5)(a) reads as under :-
“Where the landlord or any other
person claiming to be a lawful
occupant of the building or any part
thereof comprised in the allotment
or release order satisfies the
District Magistrate that such order
was not made in accordance with
Signature Not Verified
clause (a) or clause (b), as the
Digitally signed by
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2018.02.17
11:02:18 IST
Reason:
case may be, of sub-section (1), the
District Magistrate may review the
order:
2
Provided that no application under
this clause shall be entertained
later than seven days after the
eviction of such person.”
2. Sh. S. R. Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants, submits that the
only order that is open to review is an order
passed 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 :-
“Allotment and release of vacant
building – (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):
3
[Provided that in the case of a
vacancy referred to in
sub-section(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)]”
3. Sh. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the party-respondents, points out
that the District Magistrate, if passes a wrong
order regarding a vacancy, the same is always
open to review, being only statutory remedy.
4. The whole purpose of Section 16(1) of the
Act, as the title indicates, is for “ allotment
and release of vacant building” . Unless there
is a finding regarding vacancy, there cannot be
either allotment or release. 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, learned senior
counsel, the order attains finality and there is
no provision under the Act to challenge the
4
same. In our view, that would defeat the whole
purpose of the Act and the contention is also
against the scheme of the Act. The whole
purpose of Section 16(5)(a) is to see whether
the District Magistrate has passed a lawful
order in the matter of either allotment or
release. The question of release or allotment
arises only if there is a vacancy. Once the
finding is that there is no vacancy, the same is
certainly open 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 the High Court that the District
Magistrate was justified in invoking its review
jurisdiction under Sub-Section 5(a) of Section
16 of the Act.
6. Having said that, we find that there are
certain other facts also which should be taken
5
note of. There is a civil suit pending between
the parties, being Suit No. 375 of 1981 before
the II Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi. That
pertains to the cancellation of a sale deed said
to have been executed by the son of Respondent
No. 2 in favour of the appellants. The premises
now occupied by the appellants is the same
premises which is the subject matter of the
suit.
7. Though Sh. S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel,
submits that this Court, having found that
review jurisdiction is properly exercised, the
matter should be left to the authority concerned
to consider whether the release would be granted
or not since several factors are taken note of
while granting the order, having regard to the
detailed discussion made by the High Court in
the impugned order, having regard to the fact
that the landlord has been pursuing the
litigation for release since 1978, and the
further fact that he is the beneficiary in the
review, we are of the view that it is just,
fair, reasonable and proper that the proceedings
6
under the Act be given a quietus. Ordered
accordingly.
8. However, we make it clear that the rights of
the parties inter se will be decided in Suit No.
375 of 1981. Accordingly, this appeal is
disposed of with a direction to the trial court
concerned to dispose of Suit No. 375 of 1981
expeditiously and in any case, within a period
of six months from today. We make it clear that
the suit will be tried on its own merits. The
submission that the parties will cooperate for
the expeditious disposal of the case is
recorded.
9. We also make it clear that the status quo
with regard to possession shall continue till
the suit is finally disposed of by the trial
court.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]
New Delhi;
February 08, 2018.
7
ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.5 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10449/2011
RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH.LRS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
(CIVIL SUPPLIES) & ORS. Respondent(s)
[PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES] ON IA 6/2016 FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. ON IA 7/2016)
Date : 08-02-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Appellant(s) Mr. S. R. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mangal Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Saumya Jaykaran Singh, Adv.
Mr. P. N. Mishra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ankur Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Garg, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
8