MADHU GOPAL versus VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 26-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAOHU GOPAL 
v. 
VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 
B 
(SABYASACHI MUKHARJI .\ND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act 1972/U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic-
1iot1) Rules, 1972. Section 16(5)(a}/f<ule 10(9)-Review of order of 
release/Allotment-A landlord even though not in actual possession can 
C ask for review of the order. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The petitioner in the Special Leave Petition is the tenant, Respon-
dent No. 3 was one of the five co-owners of the petition premises. 
On January 28, 1978, one of the co-owners who had sole posses-
sion of the shop vacated the shop and sent intimation of the vacancy to 
the Rent Controller under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972. The petitioner filed allotment applica-
tion for the said shop and he was the sole applicant. 
The Rent Control Officer directed the petitioner to appear in the 
allotment proceedings, called for a report from the Inspector, found 
one of the co-owners to be in possession of the shop and that he had 
discontinued the business and was going to let out the shop. The 3 other 
co-owners never objected to the petitioner's tenancy on the allotment 
order. The allotment letter was accordingly passed on 12th February, 
1978, and possession was taken up by the petitioner thereafter. 
On or about 25th February, 1978 the 3rd respondent who was a 
non-occupant owner filed an application under section 16(5) of the Act 
i.e. after 25 days of the allotment, for review of the order. The Rent 
Controller allowed the review application and cancelled the allotment 
order. 
The Additional District Judge having dismissed the revision peti-
tion, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court. 
H 
The question about the maintainability of the review application 
276 
.. ,·' 
MAOHU GOPAL v. ADDL. DISTI. JUDGE 
277 
under section 16(5) of the Act aHhe instance of a non-occupant owner 
having arisen the matter was referred to a Full Bench and by a majority, 
the Bench came to the conclusion that such an application was 
maintainable. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, 
HELD: I. A landlord, even though not in actual possession at the 
time of the possession of the property, can ask for review of the order of 
release or allotment. [280G j 
2. A landlord has a right to the property. The section should not 
be so construed as to defeat the right to possession of property in 
appropriate cases unless the intention of the Legislature is manifest. [280F] 
3. Section 16(5)(a) speaks of 'where the landlord or any other 
person'. Hence, two categories of persons are contemplated i.e. a land-
lord, or any other person. [280C] 
4. The requirement of the sub-section, to be in lawful occupation 
of t!te building or any part thereof, applies only in case of any other 
person claiming to be in lawful occupation and not in case of landlord. 
The Section has used the expression ''or'' and so the expression ''or'' is 
disjunctive of these two categories to be treated separately. Hence, the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
requirement to be in lawful occupation, is not there is case of an appli-
E 
cation by the landlord. [280C-D I 
5. The proviso puts an embargo of 7 days in making the at>plica-
tion for review. It can only apply to I.hose who were in lawful occupation 
at the time of the making of the original Order. It cannot curtail the 
rights of the landlord, as such, it only affects any other person who was 
F 
in lawful occupation. [280E-G J 
· 
Niren Kumar Das v. The District Judge, Pilibhit & Ors., AIR 
1977 Allahabad 47, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition 
G 
(Civil} No. 6577of1988. 
From the Judgment and order dated 27.4.1%8 of the High Court 
of Allahabad in C.M.W. No. 3777 of 1987. 
G.L. Sanghi and Manoj Prasad for the Petitioner. 
H 
A 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
The Jugment of the Court was delivered by 
SABY ASA CHI MUKHARJI, J. This application for leave to 
appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution arises from the judgment 
and order of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 27th April, 1988 by 
the judgment under challenge the Division Bench by majority directed 
B the Addi. City Magistrate or the Officer at present exercising the 
power of Distt. Magistrate under Rule 10(9) of the U.P. Urban Build-
ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules 1972 to issue 
notice on all the five landlo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.