MOHD. NAZIR versus BECHAND PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 579 · Decided: 28-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MOHD. NAZIR 
v. 
BECHAND PRASAD AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 28, 1997 
(M.M. PNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction : 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972: 
A 
B 
c 
Ss. 16, 16(4}-Power of District Magistrate to restore possession of the 
allottee--Allottee put in possession but subsequently ousted at the instance of 
landlord-Application by al/ottee u/s 16( 4) for being restored possession of 
premises-Held, District Magistrate has not only to put back .in possession the 
allottee but is otherwise empowered to pass all consequential or incidental D 
orders to maintain possession of the al/ottee. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No: 1711 of 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.3.95 of the Allahabad High E 
Court in W.P. No. 35008 of 1994. 
Sunil Kr. Singh for Anil Kr. Jha for the Appellant. 
A.A. Khan for the Respondent No. 1-3. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
Leave granted. 
A building in the town of Banaras was statedly in possession of a 
dancing girl; it having been owned by respondent No. 1 herein. That dancer 
is stated to have associated with her two musicians to carry on her vocation. G 
That duo is respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. All the three respondents are 
represented by the same learned counsel. At a point of time, by an 
executive drive, all the dancing girls were statedly driven out of the area 
where the building in dispute stood located. The building, according to the 
claim of the landlord, was not available for regulation of letting. The H 
579 
580 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
authorities concerned took a contrary view and considered that the build-
ing was lettable. An ordl.'r under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) was passed 
in favour of the appellant herein - Mohd. Nazir - on 17.5.19(2 in respect 
of the above-mentioned building. According to him, he was put in posses-
B 
sion of the property in pursuance of the allotment order but he was ousted 
therefrom by the landlord and the dancing girl with her two musicians were 
put back in possession. The dancing girl is now dead and it is the musicians 
who continue to be in possession of the building under the protective 
umbrella of the landlord . 
. C 
In such distress, the appellant moved the District Magistrate under 
Section 16(4) of the Act for being restored possession thereof or, in other 
words, to be again put in its possession. The District Magistrate spurned 
his request on the footing that the law enjoined the allottee being put in 
possession of the building only once and that that obligation the District 
D Magistrate had duly fulfilled. It was taken that in the eye of law, the 
appellant was in possession over the property. On such view taken, the 
appellant was constrained to move the Civil Court against the landlord 
seeking restoration of possession of the building. The Civil Court recorded 
a finding that since the appellant was never put in possession, the question 
of restoration could not and did not arise. Shielded with that finding, the 
E appellant again approached the District Magistrate under Section 16( 4) of 
the Act, requiring the said Authority to put him in possession as per the 
Civil Court's finding he had never been put in possession. The District 
Magistrate this tim,e allowed the request of the appellant and ordered his 
being put in possession. The landlord and the musicians took up the matter 
F 
in revision before the District Judge who confirmed the order of the 
District Magistrate. The High Court, however, in writ proceedings at the 
instance of the landlord and the musicians, upset the order of the District 
Magistrale, taking the view that the District Magistrate had no power to 
reinstate the appellant in possession when earlier, as per averment, posses-
G 
sion had been delivered to the appellant. Further, the view taken was that 
the. Civil Court's judgment was not binding on the District Magistrate and 
that the doctrine of res judicata was applicable. 
The reasons advanced by the High Court in upsetting the valid and 
H just orders of the District Magistrate were totally out of tune -of the 
, 
NAZIR v. BECHAND PRASAD 
581 
requirements of Section 16( 4) of the Act. The said provision reads as A 
follows : 
"( 4) Where the allottee or the landlord has not been able to 
obtain possession of the building, allotted to him or, as the case 
m

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