1999 Supreme(All) 826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. H. Zaidi, J.
AKHILESH KALRA - Appellant
Versus
VTH ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW - Respondents
Writ Petiton 183 (R/c) Of 1991
Decided On : 05/26/1999

The District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and substituting his own findings in place thereof, without holding that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law or has acted in exercise of his Jurisdiction Illegally or with material irregularity.

Headnote:

U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 16(1)(B) - REVIEW APPLICATION - JURISDICTION - VALIDITY OF ORDER DECLARING VACANCY - NOTICE OF VACANCY - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS - TITLE OF THE PARTIES - RELEASE OF BUILDING - ALLOTMENT - SECTION 18 - REVISION - SCOPE - ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 115 C. P. C. - DISTINCTION BETWEEN ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW RELATED TO JURISDICTION AND ERRORS OF FACT AND LAW NOT RELATED TO JURISDICTION - SECTION 16(5) - CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER - UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION - SECTION 11 AND 13 - DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - FORM D.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the order passed by the District Judge, Lucknow, recalling the rent revision from the Court of IInd Addl. District Judge and transferring the same to the Court of VIth Addl. District Judge, and the order passed by the VIth Addl. District Judge, allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, whereby release application of the petitioners were allowed.

Finding of the Court:

1. The District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and substituting his own findings in place thereof, without holding that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law or has acted in exercise of his Jurisdiction Illegally or with material irregularity. 2. The contesting respondents having failed to prove that they were landlords of the building in question, the applications for review of the release order filed by them were legally not maintainable. 3. The whole building in question was in the tenancy of the Deputy Cane Commissioner. There may be open land, lying in its compound but the same cannot be dealt with and treated separately inasmuch as, term building has been defined in clause (1) of Section 3 as under: "3. (I) building, means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes- (i any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses appurtenant to such building : (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building : (iii) any fitting and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. " 4. It was not necessary to issue notices of the release application to the unauthorized occupants. 5. The revision filed by the contesting respondents was also legally not maintainable, and the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to go into the validity of order declaring vacancy dated 14. 11. 84 in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. 6. The respondent No. 1 has commented upon respondent No. 2 that he wrongly dealt with the question of title of the parties over the building in question. It was held that in the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the question of title, but he himself committed same error, which is apparent on the face of the record, in entering into the question of title of the parties over the building in question, permitting the contesting respondents to file additional evidence in the form of photostat copies of the alleged sale deeds, in perusing the same although execution of the said sale deeds was not proved in accordance with law and in holding that the contesting respondents were owners or co-owners of the building in question and further that both the parties were asserting title to the building in question, therefore, same could not be released in favour of the petitioners. 7. Release of a building is a matter between the landlord and the district Magistrate, the prospective allottees, outsiders and the persons claiming through them have got no right to intervene in the said proceedings. 8. The respondent No. 1 has thus acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction in setting aside the orders passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the building in question was released in favour of the petitioners and the application filed by the contesting respondents under Section 16 (5) of the Act was dismissed. 9. The contesting respondents having utterly failed to prove their case, there was no occasion for issuing commission to inspect the building at their instance.

Issues: 1. Whether the District Judge had the jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer? 2. Whether the contesting respondents were entitled to notice of the release application? 3. Whether the revision filed by the contesting respondents was legally maintainable? 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 had the jurisdiction to go into the validity of order declaring vacancy dated 14. 11. 84 in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act? 5. Whether the respondent No. 1 was right in holding that the contesting respondents were owners or co-owners of the building in question? 6. Whether the release of a building is a matter between the landlord and the district Magistrate? 7. Whether the respondent No. 1 acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction in setting aside the orders passed by respondent No. 2?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and substituting his own findings in place thereof, without holding that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law or has acted in exercise of his Jurisdiction Illegally or with material irregularity. 2. The contesting respondents having failed to prove that they were landlords of the building in question, the applications for review of the release order filed by them were legally not maintainable. 3. The whole building in question was in the tenancy of the Deputy Cane Commissioner. There may be open land, lying in its compound but the same cannot be dealt with and treated separately inasmuch as, term building has been defined in clause (1) of Section 3 as under: "3. (I) building, means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes- (i any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses appurtenant to such building : (ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building : (iii) any fitting and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. " 4. It was not necessary to issue notices of the release application to the unauthorized occupants. 5. The revision filed by the contesting respondents was also legally not maintainable, and the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to go into the validity of order declaring vacancy dated 14. 11. 84 in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. 6. The respondent No. 1 has commented upon respondent No. 2 that he wrongly dealt with the question of title of the parties over the building in question. It was held that in the proceedings under Section 16 of the Act, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the question of title, but he himself committed same error, which is apparent on the face of the record, in entering into the question of title of the parties over the building in question, permitting the contesting respondents to file additional evidence in the form of photostat copies of the alleged sale deeds, in perusing the same although execution of the said sale deeds was not proved in accordance with law and in holding that the contesting respondents were owners or co-owners of the building in question and further that both the parties were asserting title to the building in question, therefore, same could not be released in favour of the petitioners. 7. Release of a building is a matter between the landlord and the district Magistrate, the prospective allottees, outsiders and the persons claiming through them have got no right to intervene in the said proceedings. 8. The respondent No. 1 has thus acted illegally and in excess of his jurisdiction in setting aside the orders passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the building in question was released in favour of the petitioners and the application filed by the contesting respondents under Section 16 (5) of the Act was dismissed. 9. The contesting respondents having utterly failed to prove their case, there was no occasion for issuing commission to inspect the building at their instance.

Final Decision: Writ petition allowed. Judgment and order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 28/10. 1991 is, hereby, quashed. Orders passed by respondent No. 2 dated 2. 1. 19991 and 13. 12. 1986 are restored. The respondent No. 2 is directed to issue and execute From d and get the possession of the building in question delivered to the petitioners, in accordance with law.