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 clause  (a)  or  clause  (b),  as  the 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