ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M.C. DESAI, CJ., V. G. Oak and R. S. Pathak, JJ.
UDHOO DASS - Appellant
Versus
PREM PRAKASH - Respondents
Second Appeal 2033 Of 1954
Decided On : 02/06/1963
( 1 ) THE following question has been referred to this Bencn for its opinion:-" whether a contract of tenancy of an accommodation governed by the U. P. (Temporary)Control of Rent and EVICtion Act entered into by a landlord with a person on payment of rent by latter, for the purpose of carrying on business in the accommodation, in violation of a general or special order issued by the District Magistrate concerned under Section 7 (2), is void under section 10 read with Section 23 of the Contract Act". Respondent No. 2 is the owner of a shop governed by the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and eviction Act, 194/ and had let it out to Sharma Provision Stores. On 1-2-52 respondent No. 1 who will be referred to as the respondent hereinafter, purchased the goodwill, goods and effects of Sharma Provision Stores and continued business in the shop under the style "sharma provision Stores". The appellant represented to the District Magistrate that the shop had fallen vacant and on 20-2-1952 obtained from him an order under Section 7 (2) of the Act (known popularly as "allotment order") calling upon the landlord to let it out to him. Thereupon the respondent instituted the suit giving rise to this appeal for an injunction. It was contested by the appellant and was decreed on the ground that the shop had not fallen vacant and the District magistrate had no power to issue the order of allotment. An appeal from the decree was dismissed by a Civil Judge and the second appeal has been tiled in this Court. The learned Judge before whom the second appeal came up for hearing referred it to a larger Bench in view of the importance of a question raised in it.
( 2 ) UNDER Section 7 (1) every landlord and every tenant is required to inform tho District magistrate about an accommodation becoming, or having become, vacant under Section 7 (2)every District Magistrate is empowered to require by a general or special order a landlord to let, or not to let, to any person any accommodation which is, or has fallen, vacant or is about to fall vacant. A general order is an order directed to the public in respect of every accommodation falling or fallen vacant and a special order is an order addressed to a particular landlord in respect of a particular accommodation. A common general order is an order prohibiting all landlords from letting out any accommodation that is vacant without his permission; such an order is violated if any landlord lets out an accommodation without his permission. If no special order is -issued, it is violated as soon as any accommodation is let out without permission. A special order is an order requiring a landlord to let out a particular accommodation to X or not to let it out to x. The former order is violated by the landlords not letting it out to X; it is violated if he does not let it out to any one. If he lets it out to Y, he violates the general order, if any issued, but not the special order unless time is fixed for his letting it out to X and it has expired. The latter order prohibiting a landlord from letting it out to X is violated by his letting it out to X but not by his letting it out to Y. If he lets it out to X, the general order also is violated and if he lets it out to Y, only the general order is violated.
( 3 ) UNDER Rule 3 of the rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by Section 1/ of the Act a District Magistrate is required to make an "allotment order" within 30 days of the receipt of information sent to him by the landlord under Section 7 (1) (a) ana to inform him of it. The State Government had no justification to call the order an "allotment order"; it is an order directing a landlord to let out an accommodation to a particular person. It confers no right whatsoever upon the person other than of requiring the landlord to let out the accommodation to him. To "let out" means to enter into a contract of tenancy (with a person) and it is only after he has done so tha
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.