JIWAN SINGH versus RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANR.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 19-12-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JIWAN SINGH 
v. 
RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANR. 
December 19, 1974 
[K. K. MATHEW, P .. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
U.P. Act 3 of 1947--S. 7 (I )(a) and rule ( 4 )-Scope of. 
The first respondent entered into possession of the two disputed shops on 19tb. 
September 1966 witb. the express consent of tb.e landlord and made an application 
to the Rent Control Otlicer for allotment of tb.e shops to him. On 15th Novem· 
her 1966, the landlord, however, revoked his consent and informed the R1mt Con· 
trol Officer that the previous tenant had not vacated them. 
On 20th Decembe1' 
1966 the landlord intimated tho Rent Control. Officer that the two shops had fal· 
ten vacant. The appellant's application dated 21st January 1967 to the Rcint Con· 
trot Officer for allotment of the shops to him was granted. The first respondent 
applied for cancellation of the allotment ·order but that was rejected. Pro1:eediI1gs 
were taken under s. 7A of the U.P. Act (3 of 1947) to eject, the first respondent, 
who then instituted a suit for declaration that the order of allotment in favour of 
the appellant was illegal and ultra vires. The Addi. Munsif held that the order 
of allotment was illegal. On appeal the Small Cause Court held that in view of 
the intimation of the landlord under s. 7 ( l) (a) of the Act the Rent Control Officer 
was obliged to !)ass an order in favour of nominee of the landlord under rule 4 
and as he did not pass the order within 30 days of intimation, the order of allot-
ment in favour of the appellant was valid. On further appe3! the High Court 
held that since the landlord .did not intimate in writing to the Rent Control Officer 
about the vacancy within seven days after the accommodation became vacant the 
Rent Control Officer was not entitled to act under rule 4 of the Rules and, there-
fore, he committed an error of jurisdiction in making the order of allotment to 
the appell~nt. The suit was held to be maintainable. 
Under s. 7(1)(a) the landlord is required to give notice in writi;1g to the Dis· 
trict Magistrate of the vacancy within seven days after the accommodation be· 
came \acant. Rule 4: states that if the landlord receives no notice from the Dis· 
trict·Magistrate he may nominate a tenant and the District Magistraie shall allot 
tb.e same to his nominee. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
AllowiJig the appeal in part and remitting the case to the Rent Control Officer, 
HELD : The High Court was right in holding that the ordr.r was ultra! vires 
tb.e power of Rent Control Officer and that the proceedings to ~vict the fimt res· 
pondent under s. 7 A were incompetent. Notice in writing within the time speci· 
lied in s. 7 ( 1) (a) is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under 
F 
rule 4. 
The landlord could not, without complying with the provisions of s. 
7 ( 1) (a), claim that the Rent Control Officer shall allot the premises tc• 
his 
nominee. It is dear that the Rent Control Officer was wrong in thinking that 
rule 4 obliged him to allot the premises to tb.e nominee of the landlord as he did 
not make the allotment within 30 days of the receipt of the notic~. [61H; F-G] 
In thO instant case the landlorcl did not give notice in writing about the vacancy 
within seven days after the accommodation became vacant. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.-Civil Appeal No. 999 of 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
14th December 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 67 of 1970. 
S. C. Manchanda, Urmila Kapoor and. Kamlesh Bansal for the 
G 
appellant. 
. 
H 
V. N. Ganpule and P. C. Kdpoor. for Respondent No. 1. 
Mohan Prasad Iha and S. N. Singh for Respondent No. 2. 
JIWAN.SINGH ii. RAJENDRA PRASAD. (Mathew,!.) 
59 
A 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MATHEW, J.-This is an appeal, by special leave, from a judgment 
and decree of the High Court of Allahabad, setting aside a decree-
passed by the Small Causes Court Agra, 
reversing the decree 
passed by the Additional Munsiff holding that the order .of allotment 
of the premises in question to the appellant was illegal and ultra vires. 
The facts of the case are these. There are two shops owned by one 
Genda Puri (hereinafter called the 'landlord'). in Agra 
City. One 
Kedarnath Tandon ('Tandon' for short) was a tenant of these shops 
till September 1966. Tandon intimated to the Rent Control and 
Eviction Officer, Agra ("Rent Control Officer" for short) on 12-9-1966 
that he has vacate

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