DR. (SMT.) KESHAV DEVI versus SHRI GIRDHARI LAL PAHWA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 05-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. (SMT.) KESHAV DEVI 
v. 
SHRI GIRDHARI LAL PAHWA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 1986 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972/U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
'>t, 
Eviction) Rules, 1972: 
C 
. 
Sections 16(/)(a) & 17(2)/Rule 19. Buildings-Part of in occupa-
j 
lion of landlord for residential purpose-Allotment of any other part of-../'\,_ 
building to be made in favour of person nominated by landlord. 
One Mauji Ram Gupta was the owner of a house consisting of 
ground floor and first floor. When the vacancy in the first floor arose, 
D the landlord applied for release of the premises u/s.16 of the U.P. 
Urban Build;ngs (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 
Respondent No.4, the Additional District Magistrate, rejected the claim 
of the landlord and allotted the first floor to the appellant. Thereafter, 
Respondent No. I purchased the disputed house on 18. 7. 77 and oc-
cupied the ground floor. The aforesaid order of allotment was set aside 
E on 18.8. 77 hy the District Judge with a direction to respondent No. 4 to 
reconsider the applications made for allotment of the premises in ac-
cordance with law. 
Respondent No. 4 reconsidered the applications and by his order 
dated 4.1. 78, again allotted the premises to the appellant after rejeding 
F 
the claims of other applicants. However, in a review petition filed hy 
respondent No. I-landlord, Respondent No. 4 set aside the aforesaid 
order of allotment by his order dated 14.12.81 on the ground that since 
the premises in dispute was a part of the landlord's building which he 
was occupying, it was mandatory under s.17(2) of the Act that notice 
should have heen issued to the landlord and since no notice had ltleen 
G 
issued to the landlord, the order was vitiated. 
Aggrieved by the order of Respondent No. 4 the appellant filed a 
revision application before the District Judge. The District Judge set 
aside the order dated i4.12.81 passed by Respondent No. 4 but the same 
was restored by the High Court in a writ petition filed by respondent 
·--t 
H 
no. I. The High Court also directed respondent no. 4 to consider the 
126 
KESHAV DEVI v. G.L. PAHWA 
127 
applications for allotment after giving notice to the landlord-respondent A 
no. I. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: I. ·The allotment order dated 4.1. 78 issued in appellant's 
favour was rendered illegal for the non-compliance of the mandatory 
.. ,. 
provisions of sec.17(2) of the Act. In that view even if there was any 
procedural defect in entertaining the review application, it would not he 
proper and desirable to interfere with the order of the Addi. District 
Magistrate, more so, when the High Court has already upheld that 
1~ 
order. [135C] 
• 
2.1 When a building or a part of a building falls vacant or is likely 
to fall vacant, the District Magistrate under s.16(1) of the Act has 
jurisdiction to issue allotment order requiring the landlord to let the 
building or part thereof to the person specified in the order. The land-
lord may apply to the District Magistrate for release of the whole or any 
part of such building under s.16(i)(b) of the Act. If the release applica-
tion is allowed, the landlord is permitted to occupy the building or part 
thereof as the case inay he. But if release application is dismissed the 
District Magistrate is empowered to issue allotment order in favour of 
an applicant, and in pursuance thereof the allottee is entitled to take 
possession. [131G-H] . 
2.2. Before applications for allotment are considered by the Dis-
trict Magistrate, it is mandatory for him to serve notice of the vacancy 
on the landlord informing him the date on which the allotment is to he 
considered as prescribed by Rule 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regu-
lation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. The object and 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.., purpose of the notice to the landlord regarding the date fixed for allot-
F · 
ment proceedings is to enable him to me his objections, if any, to the 
allotment proceedings or to make application for release of the premises 
as contemplated by s.16( I)(a) of the Act or to nominate a tenant of his 
choice if he himself is in· occupation of a portion of the building. An 
allotment order m'!de without giving notice to the landlord as required 
hy Rlile 9(3) woold he rendered illegal. [131H-132A, C-D] 
G 
2.3. Section 17(2) of the Act lays down tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.