Judgment

GUPTA, J.:- This appeal by special by special leave arises out of a proceeding under the UttarPradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (referred to hereinafter as the Act). On September 11,1973 the appellant applied under Section 16 (1) (a) for allotment of a part of house No. 98 Lokmanganj, Lucknow. He was in fact in occupation of this portion of the building when he made the application; according to the appellant he had been inducted as a tenant by a person representing that he was the owner of the house, though really he was himself a tenant. On November 24, 1973 the first respondent also applied for allotting the house to him. Subsequently there were two more applicants for the house. The Area Rationing Officer (Rent Control) by his order dated June 4, 1974 allotted the accommodation to the first respondent. The appellant before us preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Lucknow, who on August 7, 1974 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of allotment made in favour of the first respondent and remanded the case to the Area Rationing Officer (Rent Control) to be decided afresh in accordance with law.

2. The District Judge pointed out that the Area Rationing Officer 446 (Rent control) had ignored altogether Rule 11 of the Rules framed under the Act which required that in the matter of allotment the principle "first come first served" should be followed. The District Judge overruled a contention raised on behalf of the first respondent that the appellants application for allotment was not maintainable as he was an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of the Act of the building in question. The appellate authority held that there was no provision in the Act which bars an unauthorised occupant from applying for an allotment. On a writ petition filed by the first respondent, the Allahabad High Court quashed the order of the District Judge and restored the order made by the Area Rationing Officer(Rent Control) allotting the house to the first respondent on the view that Rule 11 requiring "first come first served" principle to be followed was applicable only to persons similarly situated, and an unauthorised occupant could not be "placed in the same situation as others who were in need of accommodation." According to the High Court the principle "first come first served" was "not intended to be applied mechanically and not in such a manner as to frustrate the object of the Act." The correctness of the view taken by the High Court is in challenge before us.

3. It is necessary to refer briefly to the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Act, as its long title shows, is a statute "to provide, in the interest of the general public,for regulation of letting and rent of, and the eviction of tenants from certain classess of buildings situated in urban areas,and for matters connected therewith." Chapter III of the Act which contains provisions regulating letting includes Section 11 to Section 19. Section 11 lays down that no person shall let any building except in pursuance of an allotment order issued under S. 16, S. 12 states inter alia that a landlord or a tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. The appellant and the tenant of the building who inducted him there are not members of the same family. Section 13 provides that no person shall occupy a building or part thereof which a landlord or tenant has ceased to occupy except under an order of allotment made under Section 16 and that if a person "so purports to occupy" he shall be deemed to be an unauthorised occupant of such building or part. Under Section 16 (1) (a) the District Magistrate may make an order requiring the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building to any person specified in the order.