SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 1416

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.R. Singh, J.
Ruchira Vinayak - Appellants
Versus
Second Addl District Judge Meerut - Respondents
Decided on : Dec 13, 1996

Advocates:
Advocate appeared:
Pankaj Mithal

Building in Bungalow Area of Meerut Cantt. not excluded from purview of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 unless it is one which is or may be appropriated by central government on lease under Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923.

Headnote:

CANTONMENTS ACT - SECTION 3 - U. P. URBAN BUILDING (REGULATION OF LETTING RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 20 - Applicability of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 to building in Bungalow Area of Meerut Cantt. - Interpretation of 'liable to appropriation' and 'which is or may be appropriated' - Exclusion of building from purview of U. P. Act 13 of 1972.

Fact of the Case:

Tenant's petition challenging eviction decree for part of residential building in Meerut Cantt. - Building located in Bungalow Area outside Bazar Area notified under Cantonments Act - U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act 13 of 1972) applicability disputed - Lower courts held U. P. Act 13 of 1972 not applicable.

Finding of the Court:

U. P. Act 13 of 1972 is applicable to building - Building not excluded from purview of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 by virtue of clause (c) of proviso to Section 3 of Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 - Building not 'liable to appropriation' within meaning of Section 5 of Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 - House not one which may be excluded from purview of U. P Act 13 of 1972.

Issues: Whether U. P. Act 13 of 1972 is applicable to building in Bungalow Area of Meerut Cantt. - Interpretation of 'liable to appropriation' and 'which is or may be appropriated' - Exclusion of building from purview of U. P. Act 13 of 1972.

Ratio Decidendi: Applicability of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 not excluded merely because house falls within bungalow Area Meerut Cantt. - House must be one which is or may be appropriated by central government on lease under Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 - 'Liable to appropriation' under Section 5 of Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 subject to provisions of Sections 6 and 10 - House not liable to appropriation if not covered by Section 10 - House not excluded from purview of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 if part of house held/occupied by landlords.

Final Decision: Petition allowed - Revisional order quashed - Matter remitted to Revisional Court for fresh decision in light of directions.

Judgment :

S. R. Singh, J.

1. This is a tenant's petition arising out of suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages in respect of a part of the residential building No. 116 F Chapel street Meerut Cantt., Meerut which has been in the tenancy of the petitioner. The accommodation in dispute consists of two rooms along with a bathroom, kitchen and latrine with appurtenant open space. The said accommodation was let out to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs 150. The rest of the building was in occupation of the respondent- landlords. The suit instituted by the landlord after determination of tenancy, was resisted by the petitioners inter alia on the grounds that the building was governed by the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (here in after referred to as U. P. Act 13 of 1972) and hence the suit for eviction was barred by section 20 of the said Act in that it was not covered by any of exception clauses mentioned in sub-section (2) there of learned judge small causes court repelled the petitioner's contention that the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in question and in view of its finding, the suit culminated in a decree vide judgment and decree dated 2-12-90. The revision preferred under Section 26 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, having been dismissed by the IInd Addl. District Judge Meerut, vide judgement and order dated 24-4-95, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for the relief of quashing the order aforestated.

2. THE only question propounded herein is that the courts below have erred in holding that the provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 were not intended for application to the building in question. It brooks no dispute that the building in question falls outside the periphery of Bazar Area notified under Section 43-A of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and is admittedly situated in the Bungalow Area of Meerut Cantt. THE Government of India, Ministry of Defence, by means of a notification dated 11-3-1950, a copy of which has been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure C. A.-1, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 1, 1924, has declared that the provisions of the said Act would be operative with in the boundaries of the Meerut Cantonment excepting Bazar Area notified under Section 43-A of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and by means of S. R. O. 259 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Cantonments (Ex tension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1947, the provisions of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, as is in force on the date of notification in the State of U. P., have been extended to all Cantonments in the State of U. P. in the notification enacted in S. R. O 259 as shown in the Appendix Ii of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (by Eastern Book Company in 1986 Edition ). Admittedly, THE S. R. O. 259 has been superseded by means of subsequent S. R. O. 47, dated 17-2-1982, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. In S. R. O 47, dated 17-2-1982, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. In S. R. O. 259 as also S. R. O. 47 dated 17-2-1982, it is provided that any building with in the cantonment which is or may be appropriated by the central Government on lease under Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. THE definition of the term 'house' as given in section 2 (f) of the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923, means a house available for occupation by a military officer or Military Mess and includes the land and building appurtenant to the house. Section 5 of the said Act provides that every house situate in a\cantonment or part of a cantonment in respect of which a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 is, for the time being, in force, shall be liable to appropriation by the Central Government on a lease in the manner and subject t





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top