Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1215
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.
Kalawati Verma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7592 of 2014)
Decided On : 17-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Ms. Priyadarshinee Singh, Mr. Hariom Yaduvanshi, Ds. Monika Gusain
For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan
The court's decision was influenced by the findings of the Committee and the agreement of the parties, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the safety and habitability of the premises.
Headnote:
Demolition - Premises - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 133
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were directed to demolish a portion of premises under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as it was in a ruined condition and likely to collapse. The High Court declined to interfere, and the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
After appointing a two-member Committee to inspect the premises, it was found that one segment was dilapidated and not fit for habitation, while another segment was vulnerable and needed reinforcement. The parties agreed to demolish the dilapidated portion and reinforce the vulnerable portion.
Issues: Dispute over the condition of the premises, jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., and the rights of the owner to pursue eviction proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the findings of the Committee and the agreement of the parties to demolish the dilapidated portion and reinforce the vulnerable portion of the premises.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to demolish the dilapidated portion, reinforce the vulnerable portion, and pursue eviction proceedings without being influenced by the arrangement made in the present appeal.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal emanates from the order passed by the Additional City Magistrate (Second), Kanpur Nagar in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the appellants to demolish the portion of premises No.133/771-H-5, Nayapurwa, T.P. Nagar, Kanpur Nagar which was in ruined condition and likely to collapse.
3. The Magistrate vide order dated 13th October, 2010 called upon the appellants to remain present and show cause in that regard. The appellants did not file any objection or produced evidence to rebut the factual position. They even did not appear before the Magistrate. Resultantly, the Magistrate passed a final order on 22nd December, 2012. Relevant portion thereof reads thus:
“.....Having been prima facie satisfied with the said court issued conditional order dated 13.10.2010 under section 133(1) Cr.P.C. and having served on the respondents on 18.11.2010, it has been received back on record. No any objection or evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents and nor they appeared in the court. Thereafter, report was obtained from the Nagar Nigam. Executive Engineer, Zone-3, Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar submitted its report dated 22.10.2012 wherein, it has been mentioned that the above-said building is quite old and in ruined condition, its roof has been laid with old Dhannis. Orders are issued for demolish the portion of premises No.133/771 H-5, Nayapurwa T.P. Nagar which is in ruined condition and likely to collapse and portion of which is under the ownership of Smt Omanju Sharma for demolishing the same. One copy of the order to Inspector Incharge, Police Station Babupurwa and one copy be forwarded to the Deputy City Commissioner, Zone-3, Nagar Nigam for compliance. File be consigned to record room after initiating necessary proceedings.”
4. The appellants carried the matter before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by way of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.12561 of 2014. The appellants stoutly disputed that the suit premises or any portion thereof was in a dilapidated condition. They contended that the owner of the structure has not followed the procedure prescribed in U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The High Court, however, declined to interfere in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the matter involved disputed questions of facts. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on 31st July, 2014.
5. Aggrieved, the appellants have approached this Court. Considering the nature of controversy and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it was deemed appropriate to appoint a two-Member Committee to visit the premises who could submit a report about the status of the building as to whether the building in question is in a dilapidated condition or fit for habitation or not. The order passed on 20th January, 2017, reads as under:
“Heard Mr. Yahraj Singh Deora, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, learned counsel for the State and Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel appearing for the landlady.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite that a two-member committee shall go and visit the premises and submit a report whether the building in question is in a dilapidated condition or fit for habitation or not.
This Court in a similar matter had appointed Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan and Mr. Gaurav Agrawal and keeping that in view it is directed that the Two-member committee shall go to Kanpur, visit the premises and submit a report within two weeks.
Learned counsel for the parties, namely, the landlady and the tenant, shall bear the 50% of the expenses i.e. to be spent by each of the members of the Committee. State of U.P. shall provide all the facilities for the members of the Committee.
Mr. Garvesh Kabra, learned
