1982 Supreme(All) 412

Allahbad High Court
K.C.AGRAWAL,N.N.SHARMA
Kanti Khare - Appellant
Versus
Kali Prasad Asthana - Respondent
Decided On : 05/06/1982

The principles of natural justice require a hearing before an order is passed, and the rejection of an application for allotment of accommodation on the ground of deemed vacancy without a hearing is void and cannot operate as res judicata.

Headnote:

RES JUDICATA - U.P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 12(3) - ALLOTMENT OF PREMISES - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - DEEMED VACANCY - HEARING - NATURAL JUSTICE - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE - CIVIL CONSEQUENCES - REVISION - APPLICABILITY OF PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA - QUASI IN REM PROCEEDINGS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS - SECTION 14 - AUTHORISED TENANT - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Smt. Kanti Khare, filed an application under Section 16 read with Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act XIII of 1972) for the allotment of Bungalow No. 17, Kanpur Road, Allahabad, alleging that Dr. (Smt.) D. Kaur, the allottee, had constructed a residential building for herself at Nyaya Marg known as Poorab Paschim, and hence the accommodation in dispute would be deemed to have fallen vacant under Section 12(3) of the Act. The application was rejected by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer on the ground of being barred by the principle of res judicata, as an earlier application for allotment had been dismissed without a hearing. The petitioner filed a revision before the District Judge, which was transferred to the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, and was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for a fresh decision. On appeal by Dr. (Smt.) D. Kaur, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to give an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her case for allotment before rejecting the application, as the principles of natural justice required a hearing before an order was passed. The Court found that the earlier order rejecting the application was void and could not operate as res judicata, as it was passed behind the petitioner's back. The Court also held that the view taken by another single Judge of the High Court in Munnoo Lal v. District Judge, that an applicant for allotment of accommodation on the ground of deemed vacancy is not entitled to be heard before an order is made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was incorrect. The Court further held that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the application was rejected, as the rejection of the application involved civil consequences, and that the principle of res judicata did not apply as the petitioner had not had an opportunity to litigate the issue. The Court also held that the building in question was a residential building, and that Section 12(3) of the Act applied, as the respondent had constructed a residential building and ceased to occupy the building in question.

Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to give an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her case for allotment before rejecting the application. 2. Whether the earlier order rejecting the application was void and could not operate as res judicata, as it was passed behind the petitioner's back. 3. Whether the view taken by another single Judge of the High Court in Munnoo Lal v. District Judge, that an applicant for allotment of accommodation on the ground of deemed vacancy is not entitled to be heard before an order is made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was incorrect. 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the application was rejected, as the rejection of the application involved civil consequences. 5. Whether the principle of res judicata applied, as the petitioner had not had an opportunity to litigate the issue. 6. Whether the building in question was a residential building, and that Section 12(3) of the Act applied, as the respondent had constructed a residential building and ceased to occupy the building in question.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer was required to give an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her case for allotment before rejecting the application, as the principles of natural justice required a hearing before an order was passed. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, Maneka Gandhi's case, and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, which held that the principles of natural justice are applicable in administrative proceedings involving civil consequences. 2. The Court held that the earlier order rejecting the application was void and could not operate as res judicata, as it was passed behind the petitioner's back. The Court held that the petitioner had not had an opportunity to litigate the issue, and that the principle of res judicata did not apply. 3. The Court held that the view taken by another single Judge of the High Court in Munnoo Lal v. District Judge, that an applicant for allotment of accommodation on the ground of deemed vacancy is not entitled to be heard before an order is made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, was incorrect. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the application was rejected, as the rejection of the application involved civil consequences. 4. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the application was rejected, as the rejection of the application involved civil consequences. The Court held that the rejection of the application affected the petitioner's right to get the allotment conferred by the Act, and that this was a right capable of being enforced or redressed by the machinery provided in the Act. 5. The Court held that the principle of res judicata did not apply, as the petitioner had not had an opportunity to litigate the issue. The Court held that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to be heard in the earlier proceedings, and that the judgment relied upon by the contesting respondent was therefore not binding on the petitioner. 6. The Court held that the building in question was a residential building, and that Section 12(3) of the Act applied, as the respondent had constructed a residential building and ceased to occupy the building in question. The Court held that the dominant purpose of the building was residential, and that the fact that the respondent also used the building for her profession did not make it a non-residential building.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, and remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer with a direction to permit the parties to lead evidence on the controversies mentioned above and to decide the same thereafter in accordance with law.