LexANIL KALRA versus J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 401
ANILKALRA
v.
J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.3763 of 2007)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015
. [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviction:
A
B
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
C
. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - ss. 16(1)(b), 11, 2(2) - Dis-
pute as regards hundred year old building -Application u/s.
16(1)(b) for release of the building for demolition and recon-
struction before the Competent Authority- Issuance of order
for release of the building in favour of appellant and co-land-
D
lords - Thereafter, issuance of Form-C - However, since un-
authorized occupants failed to vacate the building, issuance
of Form-0 -Application for execution of Form-0 by the ap-
pellant-Al/owed by the Rent Control Officer- However, it is
alleged that to frustrate the release order, respondent Nos. 1 E
to 3 offered to give possession of thirteen rooms only, and
got the eviction proceedings stalled against unauthorized
occupants - Contempt Petition by appellant before the High
Court - Contempt Appeal by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - On F
appeal, held: Respondents failed to show that under what
authority the building was being occupied by respondent Nos.
1 to 3 and let out to various occupants in violation of s. 11 -
There is no allotment order issued in favour of any of the
alleged occupants u/s. 16 - Building is old and covered un-
G
der sub-section (2) of s. 2 - Considering the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case, and conduct of respondents whereby
persons were unauthorisedly inducted by them without any
allotment order, Competent Authority directed to execute the
401
H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015]9S.C.R.
A Form-D - However, since there are several occupants (in-
ducted unauthorised/y without any allotment order), on hu-
manitarian ground they are given three months' time to va-
cate the premises voluntarily, otherwise they would be forc-
B
ibly dispossessed.
· Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and others
1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 223: 1989 Supp (2) SCC 418; Zahurul
Islam v. Abu/ Ka/am and others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 464;
Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh (2005) 5 SCC
C 527; M. Meeramytheen and others v. K. Parameswaran Pillai
and others (2010) 15 SCC 359; Atma Ram Builders Private
Limitedv.A.K. Tuliandothers 2011 (6)SCR935:{2011)6
sec 385 - referred to.
D
Case Law Reference
1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 223
referred to.
Para 9
1995 supp (1) sec 464
referred to.
Para 10
E
(2005) 5 sec 527
referred to.
Para 11
(2010) 15 sec 359
referred to.
Para 12
2011 (6) SCR 935 .
referred to.
Para 13
F
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 3763
of2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2007 of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
G Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special Appeal No. 923 of 2006.
WITH
C.A. No. 5688-5689 of 2007.
H
Pradeep Kant, Divyanshu Sahay, Kamini Jaiswal for the
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS
403
Appellant.
A
Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adarsh
Upadhyay, G. K. Goswami, Abhishek Chaudhary, Gunnam
Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. The dispute in the present
matter pertains to a hundred year old building, which is covered
under Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short UP Act 13 of 1972"). C
Section 13 of said Act placed restriction on landlord, tenant
and also on any other person from occupying the building in
any capacity, without there being an order of release in favour
of landlord, or order of allotment in case of tenant. The building D
in question is known as 7, Dalibagh situated in Lucknow.
Originally said property was owned by a Barrister Mohammad
Wasim and on his migration to Pakistan, vested with the
Custodian of Evacuee Property, and thereafter settled in favour
of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das, a displaced person. But it E
appears that physical possession could not be delivered to
the allottee as the building was in occupation of several tenants.
It is pleaded that the appellantAnil Kalra, along with his brother,
sister and two others, has stepped into the shoes of the
landlords through Dr. Mulk Raj, Dwarika Das and Banarasi
F
Das, heirs of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das by way of sale deeds
executed in the years 1982-1983. It is alleged by the appellant
that after the tenants vacated the premises, an appliExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.