MANSARAM versus S. P. PATHAK AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 29-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-I 
t 
1M 
MANSARAM 
A 
v. 
S. P. PATHAK: AND OTHERS 
September 29, 1983 
B 
[D. A. DESAI AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.! 
Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 
1949 Cls. 22, 23, and 25 Occupation of premises by Government servant under 
cl. 23(2) on an assurance from landlord-Conditions to be satisfied before he can 
be evicted for contravention of cl. 22(2). 
C 
/' 
The appellant Who had taken the premises in·question on lease while he 
was serving as an employee of the .Telephone Department, continued to be iD 
possession of the same after his retirement in 1967. Respondent No. 1 who 
was allegedly in need of accommodation; filed an application before the House 
Allotment Officer praying for allotment of the said premises in his favour on 
the ground that the appellant had occupied the premises in contravention of 
cl. 22(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent 
Control Order, 1949 and that respondent No. 4 who had inherited the premises 
from the original landlord was conspiring with the app_ellant by letting him 
continue to live in the premises. Respondent No. 4, after having Once appeared 
through advocate, withdrew from the proceedings. The appellant contended 
that he had not contravened any provision of the Rent Control Order as he 
had occupied the premises on the assurance given by the then landlord that 
the house was being permitted to be occupied in accordance with st 23(2) 
thereuf, that the deceased landlord who had tried to Obtain possession of the 
premises during his lifetime on the ground of bona- fide personal requirement 
had failed in the attempt and that he had been accepted as the tenant even 
after his retirement.· The House Allotment Officer rejected the contention and 
directed the appella:rit to deliver possession of the premises to respondent No. 4 
holding that the appellan:t was liable to be evicted as the letting out of the 
premises to him by the landlord and his occupation of the same in 1954; were 
in contravention of cl. 22(1) (b) and cl. 22(2) respectively of the Rent Control 
Order and further, that having occupied the premises while holding an office 
of profit under the Union of India the appellant was not entitled to continue 
to remain in occupation of the premises after his retirement from service. The 
High Court having dismissed in limine the Special Civil Application filed by 
him under Art. 227, the appellant apprqached this Court. 
Allowing the appeal , 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD: I. According to cl. 22(1) of the C.P. and Berar Letting ol 
H 
Houses and Rent Control Order~ 1949, a landlord is under a statutory duty to 
intimate the Collector any existing or impending vacancy in the premises of 
Which he is the landlord. The object underlying the provision is"'- to make 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
Stii>ii.EME COURT REPORTS 
[1984) i s.<'.ii.. 
residential accommodation available to a specified class of persons mentioned 
in cl. 23 which includes a person holding an office of profit tinder the Union 
or State Government or a displaced or an evicted person. The Collector can 
allot the premises "in respect of which he has received arl intin1ation of vacancy 
under ct' 22, to anyone belonging to this specified class and none else. The 
very enumeration of the class would show that theSe are persons who cannot 
tJe left to the vagaries of tLe law of demand and supply of residential accom-
1nodation. It may be that, at any given point of time, no one from the speci-
fied class may be on the waiting list, and therefore cl. 23(2) permits the land-
lord to let out such premises to any person if, after 15 days from the date1of 
intimation of vacancy to the Collector, an order ·of allotment i_s not served 
upon the landlord. As a sequel to the right to obtain allotment on the ground 
of beirig the holder of an-office of profit under Union or State Government, a 
corresponding obligation iS cast by cl. 25 upon such person -to vacate the 
,Pr-emises as soon as he ceases to hold the office or the post which enabled him 
to obtain the order of allotment.. 'fhe legal liability of giving intimation of 
vacancy is squarely on the landlord and if he has given su.ch intimation and 
the statutory limit of 15 days for making an allotment order has expired, the 
landlord can proceed to let out the premises to anyone. 
In such a"situation, 
the only duty cast on the tenant is to seek an assurance from the landlcird that 
the premises are being permitted to be

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