Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.C. MATHUR, J.
Keshav Devi - Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7943 of 1986
Decided on : Oct 19, 1987
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 18 (3) - ALLOTMENT ORDER RESCINDED - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION TO LANDLORD - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 18 (3) - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the order of eviction passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies) under section 18 (3) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The dispute pertained to the first floor of a house. The petitioner was allotted the accommodation in question through an order dated 23rd July, 1976. However, this order was set aside in revision and the case was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate. The Additional District Magistrate again allotted the accommodation to the petitioner through an order dated 4th January, 1978. This order was also challenged and was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate through an order dated 14th December, 1981. The first floor of the house was released in favor of the landlord. The petitioner challenged this order before the District Judge, who allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 14th December, 1981. The landlord then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which allowed the petition and quashed the order of the District Judge. The petitioner challenged the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court, but the challenge failed. The landlord then applied to the Additional District Magistrate under section 18 (3) of the Act for being put in possession of the first floor by eviction of the petitioner. The Additional District Magistrate passed an order for petitioner's eviction on 22nd November, 1986, which was challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that section 18 (3) of the Act was applicable to the facts of the case. The Court observed that the order of allotment in favor of the petitioner had been rescinded and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to remain in possession of the accommodation in question. The Court further held that the landlord was entitled to possession of the accommodation in question as he was the owner of the house. The Court also held that the petitioner did not have a right to hearing under section 18 (3) of the Act as the proceeding under that provision was in the nature of an execution proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether section 18 (3) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is applicable to the facts of the case? 2. Whether the petitioner had a right to hearing under section 18 (3) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 18 (3) of the Act applies to cases where an order under section 16 or section 19 is rescinded. The order of allotment in favor of the petitioner had been rescinded and, therefore, section 18 (3) was applicable. 2. The proceeding under section 18 (3) is in the nature of an execution proceeding and, therefore, the petitioner did not have a right to hearing.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the accommodation in question within one month.
S. C. Mathnr, J.
1. This petition is directtd against order for delivery of possession of immoveable property, passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Lucknow, opposite party no. 1, under section 18 (3) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972). The dispute in the petition pertains to first floor of house No. 109/16, Model House, police station Aminabad, Lucknow.
2. Admittedly the above house previously belonged to Sri Mauji Ram Gupta. It appears that the house had been let out by Sri Mauji Ram Gupta When the tenant vacated the accommodation, Sri Mauji Ram Gupta applied for release of the said house. Meanwhile the petitioner and others applied for allotment thereof. By order dated 25th February, 1976 only the ground-floor of the house was released in favour of Sri Mauji Ram Gupta and his application for release in respect of first floor was rejected. The first floor was thereafter allotted in favour of the petitioner by order dated 23rd July, 1976. She obtained possession over the allotted accommodation on 25th July, 1976. The allotment in favour of the petitioner was challenged before the District Judge by Rama Kant Srivastava. an applicant for allotment. While the revision was pending Mauji Ram Gupta sold the entire house to Pawa through sale-deed dated 18th July, 1977. The revision was allowed and allotment order dated 23rd July, 1976 was set-aside and the case was remanded to the Additional District Magistrate who again allotted the accommodation to the petitioner through order dated 4tb January, 1978. This order had been passed without notice to Pawa who applied for review of the order which was allowed and the allotment order was cancelled by order dated 14th December, 1981. By this order not only the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the first floor of the house was released in favour of Sri Pawa. Against this order the petitioner preferred revision before the learned District Judge. The learned IInd Additional District Judge, before whom the revision came up for hearing, allowed the same by judgment and order dated 18th January, 1983 and set-aside the order dated 14th December, 1981. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Pawa preferred writ petition in this court which was allowed by me by judgment and order dated 20th January, 1984. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows :-
"...Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 18-1-1983 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Lucknow, Annexure 1, is hereby quashed. The allotting authority will reconsider the opposite party no. 3's application for allotment after giving notice to the petitioner...."
The petitioner challenged the order of this Court Before their lordships of the Supreme Court. The challenge however failed. A copy of the judgment and order passed by their lordships on 5th November, 1986 is on record.
3. It appears that after the order of this Court Sri Pawa applied to the Additional District Magistrate under section 18 (3) of the Act for being put in possession of the first floor by eviction of the petitioner. His plea was that since the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner has been set-aside, the petitioner was not entitled to remain in possession of the accommodation in question. Copy of this application was not served upon the petitioner. All the same she appeared before the Additional District Magistrate on 1st February, 1984. From his order dated 1st February 1984, which is on record, it appears that the Additional District Magistrate heard both the sides and came to the conclusion that more detailed hearing was required. He accordingly adjourned the case to 7th February, 1984. Before final orders could be passed on Pawa's application, the petitioner approached their lordships of the Supreme Court and obtained stay order on 1st March, 1984
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
