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

1973 Supreme(SC) 342

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S.N. DWIVEDI AND P.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
The State of U.P. and another, Appellants
Versus
Shri Anand Swarup, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1389 of 1967.
Decided on 6-11-1973.

Headnote:

U. P. Government Premises Act, 1952 - Section 3, 12, 12(2), 15, 2(c) and 15-A - Defence of India Rules, 1939 - Rule 75-A and 81 (2) (bb) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 22 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Landlord - Permanent Injunction - Recovering Amount - Whether Act is ultra vires or invalid on any score and also note in passing that Act has been amended in 1970 - Whether these premises were requisitioned by Government and, if by District Magistrate - Whether they were requisitioned by him in exercise of powers validly delegated to him by Government - Whether premises in suit are Government premises as that point had not been taken before courts – Held, Learned counsel for appellant was conscious of his difficulty in facing a question from court with regard to existence of requisition order in this case under Rule 75-A of Defence of India Rules - No notification containing order of requisition of premises under Rule 75-A had been produced before High Court nor before Court, notwithstanding opportunity offered by Court here - With regard to order of so called requisition passed by District Magistrate under rule 81 (2) (bb), it is sufficient to state that no valid order of requisition of premises could be passed under sub-rule - Besides power of requisition under Rule 75-A is conferred upon Government and there is no delegation of this power by Government under Section 2 5) of Defence of India Act in this case in favour of District Magistrate - It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that respondent can support decree on grounds raised by him and decided against him by courts below on analogy of provisions of order 41, rule 22. Civil Procedure Code - Respondent, therefore is entitled to recanvass point here to support decree of High Court on ground rejected by it or even not considered by it - Only limitation in that behalf is that respondent by relying upon such a ground cannot be allowed to mutilate or destroy decree - Short of that, within ambit of law, he can support decree on any ground available to him - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

GOSWAMI, J.:- This appeal by special leave at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Meerut (briefly the defendants) is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 993 of 1960 whereby the High Court dismissed the same. The material facts are briefly as follows:

The sole respondent (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) instituted suit No. 678 of 1956 on July 16, 1956, praying for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from recovering certain amount and from threatening to evict him from the 3/8th portion of the premises in suit in his occupation situated in Wright Gunj, Ghaziabad. The plaintiff describes himself as a duty allotted tenant of the portion of the house on a monthly rental of Rs. 4/4 of some time. He had offered the said rent, but neither the Government nor the owner of the premises accepted the same, when subsequently the District Magistrate wanted to eject him from the house, the plaintiff, by some arrangement, become the direct tenant of the landlord. The District Magistrate by a notice dated April 21, 1955, as stated therein, cancelled the allotment order "under which the plaintiff was holding the 3/8th portion of the house No. 36" and notified the plaintiff that he "shall be deemed to be in unauthorised occupation of the Government premises under Section 3 of the U. P. Government Premises (Rent Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1952", (briefly the Act). Another notice was also sent to the plaintiff by the District Magistrate on October 14, 1955, calling upon him to vacate the said premises within thirty days of service of the notice failing which he would be liable to be forcibly evicted therefrom. A notice was also sent by the District Magistrate to the plaintiff under Section 12 to the Act on April 24, 1957, in supression of his earlier notice of November 24, 1956, assessing this time Rs. 1522/10/9 as damages at the rate of Rs. 21/6/6 per month for the unauthorised occupation of the premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955, inclusive of notice fee and interest to be realisable as arrears of Land Revenue under the Act. After serving a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on April 13, 1956, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the Munsif Ghaziabad. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. Inter alia, according to them, the premises had been requisitioned under the Defence of India rules on July 26, 1946 and were derequisitioned on November 21, 1955. During the above period of requisition the plaintiff remained in possession of the suit premises from December 15, 1949 to November 21, 1955 without any valid allotment order under the Act. The amount was, therefore, assessed by the District Magistrate, who is the competent authority under the Act, on account of the plaintiffs unauthorised use and occupation during the period and the same could be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is not necessary to advert to the other pleas of the defendants for the purpose of this appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit allowing the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants from proceedings against the plaintiff under the Act for recovery of the amount as arrears of Land Revenue. The other reliefs claimed by the plaintiff were, however, refused. The defendants appeal to the Second Civil Judge, Meerut, was dismissed. That led to the Section Appeal to the High Court which met with the same fate. Hence this appeal by special leave.

2. Before the High Court the appellants submitted that the premises in suit being "Government Premises" within the meaning of S. 2(c) of the Act, the suit was barred under Section 15 of the Act. There was dispute between the parties in the High Court with regard to the factum of requisition of the premises under the Defence of India Rules, 1939. The High Court, however, did not deal with this p

















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