The District Magistrate has the power to pass an order under S. 7(2) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, when the accommodation is about to fall vacant, and the order takes effect immediately.

Headnote:
U. P. (TEMPORARY) CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION ACT, 1947 - S. 7(2), 7-A - ACCOMMODATION ABOUT TO FALL VACANT - ORDER UNDER S. 7(2) - EFFECT - OCCUPATION IN CONTRAVENTION OF ORDER - JURISDICTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 7-A.
Fact of the Case:

The tenant challenged the orders passed by the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer under S. 7(2) and S. 7-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, alleging that the orders were passed without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the District Magistrate had the power to pass an order under S. 7(2) when the accommodation was about to fall vacant, and that the order took effect immediately. The Court also held that the tenant's occupation of the accommodation after the allotment order was in contravention of the order, and that the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S. 7-A and to pass the orders under sub-ss. (2) and (3) of S. 7-A.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Magistrate had the power to pass an order under S. 7(2) when the accommodation was about to fall vacant? 2. Whether the tenant's occupation of the accommodation after the allotment order was in contravention of the order? 3. Whether the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S. 7-A and to pass the orders under sub-ss. (2) and (3) of S. 7-A?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The District Magistrate can pass an order under S. 7(2) not only when the accommodation is or has fallen vacant but also when it is about to fall vacant. 2. The tenant's occupation of the accommodation after the allotment order was in contravention of the order, as the letting and the continuance of occupation by the appellant under it were in direct breach of the allotment order. 3. The Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under S. 7-A and to pass the orders under sub-ss. (2) and (3) of S. 7-A.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

BACHAWAT, J. : The appellant is the tenant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords of non-residential accommodation in it part of a building in Mohalla Bulanala in the city of Varanasi. Respondent No. 1 is 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 11, 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 let the accommodation to respondent No. 1. On February as, 1957, the landlords and the tenant agreed that the tenant 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 (1) of the Act. By an order dated March 23, 1957, under S. 7-A (2) respondent No. 5 directed the tenant to vacate the accommodation by March 24, 1957. By another order dated December 2, 1957, under S. 7-A(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 trial Court and dismissed the suit. The tenant has now filed this appeal by special leave.

2. In this appeal the tenant challenges the orders passed by respondent No. 5 under sub-s. (2) of S. 7 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 7-A of the Act. Section 7 (2) is in these terms :-

"7. (1) (a) ..........................

(b) ...................................

(2) The District Magistrate may by general or special order require a landlord to let or not to let to any person any accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant."

3. Under S. 7 (2), the District Magistrate can pass an order in respect of an accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or about to fall vacant. The accommodation must either be vacant nor about to fall vacant before he can pass the order under S. 7(2). If the accommodation 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.

4. Counsel for the tenant submitted that the District Magistrate has no power to pass an order of allotment under S. 7 (2) unless the accommodation is or has fallen vacant. This submission is based on a misconception. The District Magistrate can pass an order under S. 7 (2) not only when the accommodation is or has fallen vacant but also when it is about to fall vacant. On the materials on the record there can be no doubt that the accommodation was about to fall vacant when respondent No. 5 passed the order under S. 7(2). Before passing the order, he issued notices to the landlords and the tenant. On January 5, 1957, the landlords stated before him in writing that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis