DAUD AHMED versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 04-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
B 
c 
D 
405 
DAUD AHMED 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD & ORS. 
February 4, 1972 
[S. M. Snw, C.J., A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALEKAR 
AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
U.P. (TempOl1'ary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss. 
3, 
second proviso and 1-Scope of. 
Natural Justice-"-Duty of inquire whether alternative accommodation 
exists before requisitioning premises, 
1be petitionei' owned premises which were in the oqcupe.tion of a 
tenant. The tenant vacated the premisea and delivered posse8Sion to the 
petitioner who moved into actu"1 occupation and informed the. au!lioritiea: 
Thereafter, the District Magistrate pasied an order of requisition of theae 
premises, without any enquiry as to whether the petitioner had any othot' 
alternative accommodation, and the petitioner challenaed the order. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : ( J) The petitioner was in &ctual residenoe of the requisitioned 
premises and his occupation was not unlawful. Section 7 of the Act does 
not contain any impediment or bar to the landlord takihg possession Of 
E 
the premises after the tenant has vacated. [408 B-G] 
p 
G 
H 
(2) The sec.ond proviso to s. 3 of the Act, therefore, applies, and 
under th&t proviso, the District Magistrate had to form an opinicin that 
alternative accommodation for the person in occupation existed' Alterna-
tive accmnmodation will have to be alternative to the accommodation of 
which the person was in actual occupation. The existence of !Ill alterna· 
tive accommodation is a mattei' of fact and the opinion is to be formed 
on certain facts. That is, the District Magistrate had to hold en inquiry 
to ~rtain the facts in order 'to arrive at the opinion that there exlated 
alternative accommodation. 
It will not be correct to say that without 
holdin.11 such an lnquiiy or aivina an opportunity to the person· in occupa. 
tion the District Ma91strate can ascertain as to whether such alte1119tive 
accommodation exltts. [409 A.C, G·H; 410 A-DJ 
A. K. Kralpak v. Union of India, [1970] I S.C.R. 457, followed. 
OiuGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 244 of 1971. 
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement 
of the Fundamental Rights. 
V. M. Tarkunde, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, for the peti-
tioner. 
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 s.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
A 
Ray, J. 
This is a wdt petition challenging the order dated 11 
July, 1971 made by the Dist.riot Magistrate, Allahabad under sec-
tion 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 
1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Requisition Act) whereby the 
petitioner's premises 1-A Beli Road, Allahabad was requisitioned B 
for the residen~e of Mr. Jul!tice D. S. Mathur for a period of "three 
years or earlier if the purpose is exhausted". 
The order further recited "I am fur.her satisfied that the said 
accommodation is not being occupied by any tenant and the owner C 
who is said to be in possession of the same is living in his own 
house No. 1011108 Katra Bakhtiari, Allahabad and so no alter-
native accommodation shall have to be provided to him". 
The petitioner owns premises 1-A Beli Road, Allahabad here-
.· inafter called the Beli Road premises. 
Prior to the impeached .0 
order the Beli Road premises had been in the occupation of Mr. 
Justice Oak Qf the Allahabad High Court since the year 1955 and 
p.rior thereto from the year 1950 when he was the District Judg.!, 
Allahabad. 
The petitioner was Jiving at 1011108 Katra Bakhtiari, Al!aha-
E. 
bad. That house is alleged to be situated in a very congested-area 
and is unhygenic because of iis situation near a municipal drain. 
The petitioner further alleged that the health of the members of 
the petitioner's family suffered because of the condition of the 
house. 
According to the petitioner, the house also required re-
construction which would cost approximately Rs. 40,000. 
F 
Mr. Justice Oak retired as Chief Justice of Allahabad High 
Court in the month of May, 1971. The petitioner in the month 
of November, 1970 made an application to the District Magistrate 
under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 
1947 (herei11after called the Eviotion Act) for release of the Beli 
G 
Road· premises in his favour after· the same would be vacated by 
Mr. Justice Oak. The application was under Rule 6 of the Rules 
under the Eviction Act. It was made in view of the fact that the 
Ch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.