SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 94

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., A.N. GROVER, A.N. RAY, D.G. PALEKAR AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
Daud Ahmad, Petitioner
Versus
The District Magistrate, Allahabad and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 244 of 1971, D/- 4-2-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, Advocates, of M/s. Hathi and Co., with him), for Petitioner; Mr. G. N. Dikshit, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Advocates:
C.N.DIXIT, HATHI, K.L.Hathi, O.P.RANA, P.C.KAPUR, V.M.TARKUNDE

Headnote:

UP (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 - Section 3 - Eviction Act - Section 7 - Accommodation is not being Occupied by any Tenant - Application for Release of Accommodation - It was made in view of fact that Chief Justice of High Court would retire in month - Petitioner also gave an undertaking that he would vacate other house 101/108 Katra Bakhtiari and same could be allotted to any other person - By an order District Magistrate rejected application of petitioner - It may be stated here that Chief Justice had recommended petitioner s application for release of accommodation - Petitioner thereafter filed a representation against order of refusal to release accommodation - State Government further stayed all proceedings for allotment in respect of Beli Road premises - Held, It will not be correct to say that without holding an enquiry and giving an opportunity to petitioner in that behalf District Magistrate will be in a position to ascertain as to whether alternative accommodation for petitioner exists existence of an alternative accommodation is a controversy which has to be determined by District Magistrate determination is necessary for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to view expressed either by District Magistrate or petitioner - That is why principle of audi alteram partem is attracted opinion as to alternative accommodation is not an impersonal obligation - It is a determination of a fact - Petition allowed.

Judgment

RAY, J.:- This is a writ petition challenging the order dated 11 July, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Allahabad under section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Requisition Act) whereby the petitioner s premises 1-A Beli Road, Allahabad was requisitioned for the residence of Mr. Justice D.S. Mathur for a period of "three years or earlier if the purpose is exhausted".

2. The order further recited "I am further satisfied that the said accommodation is not being occupied by any tenant and the owner who is said to be in possession of the same is living in his own house No.101/108 Katra Bakhtiari, Allahabad and so no alternative accommodation shall have to be provided to him".

3. The petitioner owns premises 1-A Beli Road, Allahabad hereinafter called the Beli Road premises. Prior to the impeached order the Beli Road premises had been in the occupation of Mr. Justice Oak of the Allahabad High Court since the year 1955 and prior thereto from the year 1950 when he was the District Judge, Allahabad.

4. The petitioner was living at 101/108 Katra Bakhtiari, Allahabad. That house is alleged to be situated in a very congested area and is unhygenic because of its situation near a municipal drain. The petitioner further alleged that the health of the members of the petitioner s family suffered because of the condition of the house. Accoring to the petitioner, the house also required reconstruction which would cost approximately Rs.40,000.

5. Mr. Justice Oak retired as Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court in the month of May, 1971. The petitioner in the month of November, 1970 made an application to the District Magistrate under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Eviction act) for release of the Beli Road premises in his favour after the same would be vacated by Mr. Justice Oak. The application was under Rule 6 of the Rules under the Eviction Act. It was made in view of the fact that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court would retire in the month of May, 1971. The petitioner also gave an undertaking that he would vacate the other house 101/108 Katra Bakhtiari and the same could be allotted to any other person. By an order dated 3 May, 1971 the District Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner. It may be stated here that the Chief Justice of Allahabad had recommended the petitioner s application for release of the accommodation.

6. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation under S.7-F of the Eviction Act against the order of refusal to release the accommodation. The State Government on 6 May, 1971 further stayed all proceedings for allotment in respect of Beli Road premises. After the Chief Justice of Allahabad vacated the premises in the month of May, 1971 he delivered possession to the petitioner who moved into the premises and was then in actual occupation of the Beli Road premises. The petitioner informed the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Allahabad that the Chief Justice of Allahabad had vacated the Beli Road premises and given possession thereof to the petitioner and the petitioner was in occupation of the same.

7. On 8 July, 1971 (sic) the District Magistrate passed an order of requisition of the Beli Road premises. This order is challenged on these grounds. First, no notice of enquiry was given to the petitioner nor was any enquiry made whether suitable alternative accommodation existed for the needs of the petitioner. Secondly, no provision was made for suitable alternative accommodation of the petitioner because the petitioner had stated that the accommodation at 101/108 Katra Bakhtiari was not fit for habitation and that is why the petitioner s whole family was residing at 1-A, Beli Road, Allahabad. Thirdly, it was said that the petitioner had a fundamental right to hold property and he was deprived of it without being heard and without being given an opportunity of redressing his grie













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top