The Supreme Court held that a District Magistrate can pass an allotment order under U.P. Rent Control Act when accommodation is about to fall vacant. The Court ruled such orders take effect immediately and violation of the order by continued tenancy allows eviction proceedings.
The appeal filed by the appellant-challenging the eviction order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A
BABU LAL
v.
SHEONATH DAS
· December 13, 1966
B
[R. S. BACHAWAT ANv J. M. SHELAT, JJ.]
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss. 7(2), 7A(l) & (2)~Land/ord M:Uring decree against tenant-Collector a1Jo1- ting accommOdation to another .person-Landlord entering into arrange- ment with tenant to continue his tenancy-Powers of Collector to make new allotment and to evict, tenant.
c The appellant was a tenant of respondents 2 & 3 in Varanasi. The said landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation. Exercising the Collector's powers under s. 7(2) of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act 1947, the A!sistant Rent Control and Eviction, Officer passed an order directing the landlords to let the accommodation to respondent No. 1. Hoy,.·ev~r, uls<:.quEnt **_ta_** this order, the landlords allowed the appellant to continue as tenant on enhanced rent. The Assistant Rent Cortrol & Eviction Officer thereupon **D** started proceedings under s. 7A( 1) of the Act, He passed an order under s. 7A(2) directing the appellant to vacate the accommodation. The appellant filed a writ petition but failing to get relief from the High Court, he filed ·a suit asking for a· declaration that the orders p -;sc;d i>y the Assistant Rent Cantrol & Eviction Officer were without jurisdiction. The trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court decreed it, but on second appeal the High Court restored the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit. The appellant was granted special le.ave to appeal to E this Court.
It was urged on behalf of the appellant ( i) that the District Magistrate had no powers to pass the order of allotment under •. 7{2) till the accommodation had fallen vacant, (ii) that even if he had the power the order would take effect. only when the accommodation fell vaca.;1t and (iii) that the proceedings under s. 7 A were without jurisdiction as there was no contravention of the order under s. 7(2).
F
HEID : (i) The District Magistrate can pass an order under s. 7(2) not only when the accommodation is or bas fallen vacant but also when it is about to fall vacant. In the present . case both the landlord and the tenant had made statements that the accommodation was about to fall vacant. On the materials on the record there could be no doubt that the accommodation was about to fall vacant when the District Magistrate passed the order under s. 7(2). [243 D-E] G (ii) The order under s. 7(2) directed the iandiords ro let the accobunodation to the allottee. The order took effect immediatefy It .could not be ssid that the order would take effect only when the aceommodation actually fell vacant. [244 A-Bl (Iii) After the allotment was passed. the landlords agreed to accept the appellant as •. tenant at enhanced rent. This lotting and the contiH nuance of occupation by. the appellant under it were in direct breach pf the all.oh!'ent or~er. There was thus a contravention pf the order and the Distnct ~•Aistrate had therefore jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under sub-sectioni ( 1) ·of s. 7 A and to pass the orders under sub-section• I (2) & (3) of s. 7A. (244 D-Fl I MlSup. CI/67-2
I
[1967] 2 S.C.ll.
242
SUPJtBME COURT REPOllTS
Ov11. ArPFLl.A TF Jt:Rlsnrcr10:-; : Civil Appeal No. 2271 of 1966.
A
Appeal hy >pccial leave from the judgment and decree dated the February 12. 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2862 of 1963.
B. C. Misra. ,\1. V. Goswami, and B. R. G. K. Aclwr, for the B appellant.
J. P. Goyal and H. K. Puri, for the respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. The appellant is the tenant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords of a non-residential accommodation in a part of a building in Mohalla Bulanala in the city of Varanasi. Respondent No. I as the allottee of the accommodation. Respondent No. 5 is the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi, authorised by the District Magistrate to perform his functions under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On February I I, 1956 the landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the accommodation. As the tenant was about to vacate the accommodation, on February 20, 1957, respondent No. 5 passed order under s. 7(2) of the Act directing the landlords to '!t the accommodation to respondent No. I. On February 22, 1957, the landlords and the tenant agreed that the teriant would continue to occupy the accommodation at an enhanced rent and· would be liable to eviction in execution of the decree for ejectment in the event of his failing to pay the outstanding arrears of rent in certain stated instalments. As the tenant failed to pay the agreed instalments of rent, on May 21, 1957, the landlords in execution of the decree for ejectment obtained an order from the executing court for the issue of a warrant for delivery of possession. In the meantime on February 23, 1957, proceedings were started against the appellant under s. 7 A( I) of the Act. By an order dated March 23, 1957, under s. 7A(2) respondent No. 5 directed the tenant to vacate the accommodation by March 24, 1957. By another order dated Drcember 2, 1957, under s. 7A(3) respondent No. 5 directed S.O, P.S. Chowk to evict the tenant and put the allottee in occupation of the accommodation. The tenant filed a writ petition challenging the orders of respondent No. 5. The writ petition was dismissed and the tenant was relegated to a suit. A special appeal from this order filed by the tenant was also dismissed. On September 9, 1958, the tenant filed the present suit asking for a declaration that the orders passed by respondent No. 5 were without jurisdiction and for consequential reliefs. The trial court dismissed the suit. The appellate court reversed this decree and decreed the suit. On second appeal, the High Court restored the decree of the
c
D
E
F
G
H
BABU LAL v. SHEONATH DAS (Bachawat, J.)
243
In this appeal the tenant challenges the orders passed by respondent No. 5 under sub-s. (2) of 7 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 7 A of the Act. Section 7(2) is in these terms :-
Under s. 7(2), the District Magistrate can pass an order in respect of an accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant. The accommodation must either be vacant D or about to fall vacant before he can pass the order under s. 7(2). Jf the <\Ccommodation is neither vacant nor about to fall vacant, when the order under s. 7(2) is passed, the order is void and is without jurisdiction.
(1967] 2 S.C.ll.
SUPREME COUil T llEPOll TS
244
A
Counsel next submitted that even though respondent No. 5 might have power to pass an order under s. 7(2) when the accommodation was about to fall vacant, the order could take effect only when the accommodation fell vacant. We cannot acce.,t this contention. The order dated February 20, 1957 directed the landlords to Jet the accommodation to the allottee. Respondent No. 5 had power to pass this order. The order took effect immediately.
B
Counsel for the tenant submitted that the proceedings under s. 7 A were without jurisdiction. Now the District Magistrate can take action under s. 7 A "where an order requiring any accommodation to be let or not to be let has been duly passed under subsection (2) of section 7 and the District Magistrate believes or has reason to believe that any person has in contravention of the said order, occupied the accommodation or any part thereof". Counsel submitted that as the tenant was in occupation of the accommodation before the passing of the order under s. 7(2), he cannot be said to have occupied the accommodation in contravention of the order. This contention is supported by the decision in Ram Lal v. Shiv Mani Singh and others('), but we cannot agree with the broad statement in this case that the continuance after the allotment order of an occupation previous to the order cannot be an occupation in contravention of the order. It is a question of fact in each case whether a person in occupation of the accommodation since before the allotment order can be said to have occupied the accommodation in contravention of the order, see A. K. Khandelwal v. Moti Lal Chawla and others.(2) In the instant case after the allotment order was passed, the landlords agreed to accept the appellant as a tenant at enhanced rent. This letting and the continuance of occupation by the appellant under it were in direct breach of the allotlllent order. In the circumstances, the appellant can well be said to have oc.:upied the accommodation in contravention of tl:!e order. The respondent No. 5 had, therefore, jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under sub-section (I) of s. 7 A and to pass the orders under sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 7 A. The propriety of this order cannot be questioned in this suit.
c
D
F
The appeal is dismissed. Ther.:: will be no order as to costs. G.C. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed. G
(I) (1962] A.L.J. 260. (2) (1%4] A.L.J. 20.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Magistrate has power to pass an allotment order under s. 7(2) when accommodation is about to fall vacant.
Whether the allotment order takes effect immediately or only when the accommodation actually falls vacant.
Whether the tenant's continued occupation after allotment constitutes contravention of the order under s. 7A(1).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Lal v. Shiv Mani Singh and othersDistinguished¶50
(1) (1962] A.L.J. 260
A. K. Khandelwal v. Moti Lal Chawla and othersFollowed¶50
(2) (1%4] A.L.J. 20
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Babu Lal
Sheonath Das
Respondent No. 1
Respondent No. 5
Bachawat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
