BABU LAL versus SHEONATH DAS

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 13-12-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
BABU LAL 
v. 
SHEONATH DAS 
· December 13, 1966 
[R. S. BACHAWAT ANv J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] 
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss. 7(2), 
7A(l) & (2)~Land/ord M:Uring decree against tenant-Collector a1Jo1-
ting accommOdation to another .person-Landlord entering into arrange-
ment with tenant to continue his tenancy-Powers of Collector to make 
new allotment and to evict, tenant. 
The appellant was a tenant of respondents 2 & 3 in Varanasi. The 
said landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the 
accommodation. 
Exercising the Collector's powers under s. 7(2) of the 
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act 1947, the A!sistant 
Rent Control and Eviction, Officer passed an order directing the landlords 
to let the accommodation to respondent No. 1. 
Hoy,.·ev~r, ~ul~s<:.quEnt ta 
this order, the landlords allowed the appellant to continue as tenant on 
enhanced rent. The Assistant Rent Cortrol & Eviction Officer thereupon 
started proceedings under s. 7A( 1) of the Act, He passed an order under 
s. 7A(2) directing the appellant to vacate the accommodation. 
The 
appellant filed a writ petition but failing to get relief from the High 
Court, he filed ·a suit asking for a· declaration that the orders p -;sc;d i>y 
the Assistant Rent Cantrol & Eviction Officer were without jurisdiction. 
The trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court decreed it, but 
on second appeal the High Court restored the decree of the trial court 
dismissing the suit. 
The appellant was granted special le.ave to appeal to 
this Court. 
It was urged on behalf of the appellant ( i) that the District Magis-
trate had no powers to pass the order of allotment under •. 7{2) till the 
accommodation had fallen vacant, (ii) that even if he had the power the 
order would take effect. only when the accommodation fell vaca.;1t and (iii) 
that the proceedings under s. 7 A were without jurisdiction as there was 
no contravention of the order under s. 7(2). 
HEID : (i) The District Magistrate can pass an order under s. 7(2) 
not only when the accommodation is or bas fallen vacant but also when 
it is about to fall vacant. 
In the present . case both the landlord and 
the tenant had made statements that the accommodation was about to 
fall vacant. 
On the materials on the record there could be no doubt 
that the accommodation was about to fall vacant when the District 
Magistrate passed the order under s. 7(2). [243 D-E] 
(ii) The order under s. 7(2) 
directed the 
iandiords ro let 
the 
accobunodation to the allottee. 
The order took effect immediatefy 
It 
.could not be ssid that the order would take effect only when the aceom-
modation actually fell vacant. [244 A-Bl 
(Iii) After the allotment was passed. the landlords agreed to accept 
the appellant as •. tenant at enhanced rent. 
This lotting and the conti-
H 
nuance of occupation by. the appellant under it were in direct breach pf 
the all.oh!'ent or~er. There was thus a contravention pf the order and 
the Distnct ~•Aistrate had therefore jurisdiction to initiate proceedings 
under sub-sectioni ( 1) ·of s. 7 A and to pass the orders under sub-section• 
I 
(2) & (3) of s. 7A. (244 D-Fl 
I MlSup. CI/67-2 
I 
242 
SUPJtBME COURT 
REPOllTS 
[1967] 2 S.C.ll. 
Ov11. ArPFLl.A TF Jt:Rlsnrcr10:-; : Civil Appeal No. 2271 of 
A 
1966. 
Appeal hy >pccial leave from the judgment and decree dated the 
February 12. 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 2862 of 1963. 
B. C. Misra. ,\1. V. Goswami, and B. R. G. K. Aclwr, for the 
B 
appellant. 
J. P. Goyal and H. K. Puri, for the respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. The appellant is the tenant and respondents 
Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords of a non-residential accommodation 
in a part of a building in Mohalla Bulanala in the city of Varanasi. 
Respondent No. I as the allottee of the accommodation. Respon-
dent No. 5 is the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer, 
Varanasi, authorised by the District Magistrate to perform his 
functions under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evic-
tion Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On February 
I I, 1956 the landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant 
from the accommodation. As the tenant was about to vacate the 
accommodation, on February 20, 1957, respondent No. 5 passed 
order under s. 7(2) of the Act directing the landlords to '!t 
the accommodation to respondent No.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.