LexR.K. PARASHER versus DINESH KUMAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
R.K. PARASHER A v. DINESH KUMAR AND ORS. MARCH 13, 2000 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B Rent Control & Eviction : Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic- tion) Act, 1972/Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings. (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972: Sections 13 & 14/Rule lO(S)(d), 10(6) & 10(8)(b)- An Application under Rule 10(6) of the Rules made by respondent No. 1 in connivance with the then _tenant for his induction as a tenant in the shop was dismissed by the District Supply Officer-Another application made by Re- spondent Nv. 1 under Section 14 of the Act for regularisation of his tenancy also dismissed by the District Supply Officer-The shop declared to be vacant by the District Supply Officer and ordered for re-allotment-Shop allotted to appellant by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer-Challenge to the said allotment order by way of a revision before the Additional District Judge failed-Order of the Additional District Judge challenged by way of a writ petition before the High Court-High Court set aside the allotment made in favour of the appellont-On appeai, Held : Rules l 0( 5)( d) of the Rule takes note of only the unuuth01ised occupants of a building without the written consent of the landlord and ordinarily a building is not allotted to them- Respondent No. 1 had the consent of landlord as he was found to be in collusion with the landlord by the District Supply Officer-Hence his claim could not be brushed aside on that ground. Respondent No. 1, with the connivance of the then tenant of a disputed shop, filed an application under Rule 10(6) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regularisation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 with a view to induct himself as a tenant which was dismissed by the District Supply Officer. Again filed an application under Section 14 Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regularisation. of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for regularisation of his tenancy, alleging that he occupied the shop in June, 1976. However, the said application was also dismissed by the District Supply Officer declaring the shop to be vacant in the eyes or law. The said Officer also ordered for consideration of the application for 255 c D E F G H 256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R. A allotment of the shop. Four applicants including Respondent No. 1, his .... ' father and the appellant applied for the same. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the shop in favour of the appellant. The said order was challenged in re\ision before the Addi. District Judge by Respondent No. 1, his father and the heirs of the owner of the shop. The B revision application was dismissed on the ground that the application .of the appellant being first in time, he was entitled to allotment under Rule 11 of the said Rules. Challenge to the said order was allowed by the High ' Court in a writ petition, by setting aside the allotment made in favour of ,.... the appellant. Hence this appeal. c The appellant contended that the order of allotment having consid- ered the comparative merits of the applicants, the applicant cannot com- plain of non-consideration of his application or that of his father. It was also submitted that under Rule 10(5)(d) of the Rules R-1 was ineligible while appellant was eligible under Rule 10(8)(b). D Disposing the appeals, the Court · HELD : 1. · A person who has occupied a premises without the permission of the landlord is an unauthorised occupant, a trespasser. The rule, making authority is presumed to be aware of two categories of the E unauthorised occupants of a building : (i) otherwise than with the written consent of the landlord and (.ii) otherwise than under an order of allotment or release. But the scheme of Rule 10(5)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regularisation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - 1' suggests that the rule making authority has condoned the authorised occupant so declared under Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Build- F ings (Regularisation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and has taken note of only an authorised occupant of a building without the consent of the landlord. Under that rule it is only when a person has ·entered into unauthorised occupation of the building or any part thereof without the written consent of the landlord then ordinarily the building G shall not be allotted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.