IMPORTANT POINT
If the District Magistrate has commenced exercising jurisdiction u/s. 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in respect of a building within the scope of Section 3(i), he would be within his jurisdiction to proceed further notwithstanding the intervening development that the building became roofless.

Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections 3(i), 16- Building -Definition of-A building became roofless before allotment order was passed u/s 16(1)-Tin roofs dismantled by owner of building-Whether District Magistrate had jurisdiction to allot such a structure to tenant ?-(Yes).
       Held, if the District Magistrate has commenced exercising jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act, in respect of a building which answered the description given in the definition in Section 3(i), he would well be within his jurisdiction to proceed further notwithstanding the intervening development that the building became roofless. We are inclined to afford such a liberal interpretation to prevent a wrong doer from taking advantage of his own wrong. (Para 11)
       Held that roof is not a necessary and indispensable adjunct for a building because there can be roofless buildings. So a building, even after losing the roof, can continue to be a building in its general meaning. Taking recourse to such general meaning in the present context would help to prevent a mischief. (Para 10)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - "Building" includes a roofed structure and may extend to roofless structures depending on context and definition (!) (!) . - A building that becomes roofless after vacating may still fall within the Act's jurisdiction if it was a building when it fell vacant (!) (!) . - The District Magistrate retains jurisdiction to pass an allotment order even if the structure becomes roofless subsequently (!) . - The principle of "nullum commodum capere de injuria sua propria" prevents a party from benefiting from their own wrong (!) . - The court may adjust rent to a reasonable amount based on the locality and market conditions (!) .

What is the scope of "building" under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972?

How does the District Magistrate's jurisdiction to allot a building interact with changes in the building's physical condition?

What principle applies when a building owner creates a vacancy and then alters the property?

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-The controversy between the parties in this appeal has narrowed down to a very short question. A building became roofless before "allotment order" was passed under Section 16(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act ). The question now remains in this appeals is : should the structure have necessarily been a roofed one on the date of allotment order ?

2. A summary of facts, out of which the said question has emerged, is given below :

A building situated at Meerut City owned by the contesting respondents father [Sana Ullah] was let out to one Deep Chand Gupta for a period of 5 years. On the expiry of lease period i.e. 3.8.1974, Deep Chand Gupta surrendered vacant possession of the building to the landlord. On 20.8.1974, the present appellant moved an application before the District Magistrate [who is the competent authority for passing allotment order under the Act] for allotment of the said premises to him. Sana Ullah filed his objections on 3.9.1974, in which he contended, inter alia, that the structure was not a "building" inasmuch as it had no roof then. The District Magistrate found that the structure was still a building and hence appellant was entitled to its allotment. The case had thereafter passed through a chequered career. District Judge (the revisional authority under the Act) remanded the case on two occasions to the District Magistrate for arriving at certain findings on facts. Finally it was found that the building was a roofed structure when Deep Chand Gupta vacated it, but subsequently its tin roofs were dismantled by the owner of the building and that the structure remained roofless even on the date of allotment order. Nevertheless, allotment order was passed by the District Magistrate. Pursuant thereto the appellant occupied the building. In the revision learned District Judge held that District Magistrate had jurisdiction to allot such a structure to the tenant and confirmed the allotment order.

3. Landlord filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the aforesaid order. The High Court declined to interfere with the finding on facts that the roof of the building was removed by the appellant after Deep Chand Gupta vacated the premises but took the view that "an order of allotment under Section 16 can be made only in respect of a building and not with respect to a construction which was a building at the time when it was vacated but subsequently ceased to be so." According to the learned Single Judge "as the legislature did not confer power of allotment in respect of a construction which ceased to be a building at the time of allotment, the order of allotment made in favour of respondent 4 was liable to be set aside." Writ petition was hence allowed and the allotment order was quashed. The said judgment of the Allahabad High Court is now being challenged in this appeal by special leave.

4. Before we proceed to consider the question set out earlier we may observe that learned counsel for the respondents assailed the concurrent finding of fact the roof of the building was pulled down by the landlord. But we made it clear that in view of the clear finding made by the District Magistrate and the learned District Judge on that issue and in view of the fact that High Court declined to disturb that finding, we would not go into that aspect in this appeal.

"Building" is defined in Section 3(i) of the Act thus :

"building, means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes-

(i) any land (including any garden), garages and out-houses, appurtenant to such building;

(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building;

(iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more benefitial enjoyment thereof."

5. It is clear from the definition that any structure without roof cannot fall within the ambit of the definition. Here the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document