BABU SINGH CHAUHAN versus RAJKUMARI JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 114 · Decided: 01-02-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.. 
H 
i14 
BABU SINGH CHAUHAN 
v. 
RAJKUMARI JAIN & ORS. 
February 1, 1982 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regu/atiOn of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
ALf 
1972-Sectlons 16(1) (b) and 17(2)-Scope of 
Section 16(1) (b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 empowers the District Mag_istrate to release the whole or 
any part of a building or any land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord. 
Section 17(2) provides that where a part of a building is in the occupation of the 
landlord for residential purposes or is released in his favour under section 
16(1) (b) for residential purpose!' the allotment of the remaining part thereof 
under clause {a) of sub-section (l) shall be made in favour of a person nominated 
by the landlord. 
On intimation from the tenant that he was vacating the premises, the rent 
control authority allotted them to the appellant without informing the landlady 
about the allotment. On appeal the District Judge cancelled the allotment made 
in favour of the· appellant 
The landlady then made an application for delivery of possession of the 
premises. This application was rejected on the ground that she had not applied 
for release of the accommodation. 
Her application under section 16(1) (b) for 
release of the premises was rejected and the accommodation was re·a\Jotted to 
the appellant. The District Magistrate affirmed the order of the rent control 
authority. 
The landlady's writ petition impugning the orders of the courts below was 
al.lowed by the High Court. 
the case was remitted to the courts below for 
reconsideration afresh of the question of allotment. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
since the landlady was not in actual physical possession of the premises neither 
section 16(1) (b) nor section 17(2) had any application to the facts of this case. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The order of the ·prescribed authority allotting the premises to 
the appellant was without jurisdiction and against the plain terms of section 
17(2) of the Act. The District Judge had rightly allowed the landlady's appeal 
and cancelled the allotment to the appellant. 
~-
D.S. CUAUHAN v. RAiKUMARI 
ii5 
The object of the- Act is that where a tenant inducted by the landlord 
voluntarily vacates the premises, pardy occupied by the landlord, allotment in 
the vacancy should be made only to a person nominated by him, the dominant 
purpose of such provision being to remove any inconvenience to the landlord 
by imposing or thrusting on tbe premises an unpleasant neighbour or a tenant 
who invades the landlord's right of priVacy. While empowering the prescribed 
authority to allot the accommodation, the Act safeguards the right of the landlord 
to have a tenant of his choice. [117 B·C, DJ 
In the inst.ant case if a tenant was thrust on the respondent without allowing 
her an opportunity to nominate a tenant of her choice it would violate the very 
', 
spirit and tenor of section 17(2). [120 F] 
A 
B 
Possession by a landlord of his property may assume various forms : a 
C 
landlord living outside the town might retain possession over his property or a 
part of it either by leaving it in charge of a servant or by putting his household 
effects locked up in the premises. 
Such occupation would be full and complete 
possession in the eye of law. [119 F] 
In the instant case from the fact that the landlady was residing in another 
tqwn and so was not actually residing in the premises it could not be '!aid that she 
D 
was not in possession of the premises or that she had severed her connection 
with her own property. [119 G] 
The High Court was justified in quashing the orders of the rent control 
authority because no attempt had been made to approach the landlady for 
making a nomin1tion in respect of the premises vacated by the original tenant. 
E 
All that the landlady did was to ask for the release of the premises. Even if this 
was refused it was incumbent on the rent control authority to have fulfilled the 
requirements of section 17(2) before making an allotment in favour of the 
appellant or a'oyone else. 
Simply because the landl.ady was living outside the 
town it could not be said that the provisions of this sub~section wriuld not apply 
and that the authorities concerned could make an allotment in favour of any 
person without giving an opportunity to her to exercis

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