Rajendra Kumar Verma (D) Th.Lrs. vs Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies)

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 Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA clause (a) or clause (b), as the Date: 2018.02.17 11:02:18 IST

case may be, of sub-section (1), the Reason:

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