RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH. LRS. versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLIES) & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 08-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH. LRS.
v.
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLIES) &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10449 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 08, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 – s.16(5)(a) – Allotment and release of
vacant building – Whether a Review u/s.16(5)(a) of the Act in respect
of an order regarding vacancy is maintainable – Held: The whole
purpose of s.16(1) is for “allotment and release of vacant building” –
Unless there is a finding regarding vacancy, there cannot be either
allotment or release – It is a pre-condition for an order u/s.16(1)
(a) or (b) – The whole purpose of s.16(5)(a) is to see whether the
District Magistrate has passed a lawful order in the matter of either
allotment or release – The question of release or allotment arises
only if there is a vacancy – Once the finding is that there is no
vacancy, the same is certainly open to be pursued by way of review
u/s.16(5)(a) as otherwise, the order would seal the fate of a landlord
or an applicant for allotment – That is not the purpose of the Act
and the scheme of the provision.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The whole purpose of Section 16(1) of the Uttar
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972, as the title indicates, is for “allotment and
release of vacant building”.  Unless there is a finding regarding
vacancy, there cannot be either allotment or release.  It is a pre-
condition for an order under Section 16(1)(a) or (b).  The appellant
submitted that the only order that is open to review is an order
passed under Section 16(1) (a) or (b) either for release or for
allotment, since those are the only two contingencies dealt with
under Section 16(1).  If the technical argument advanced by the
appellant is adopted, the order attains finality and there is no
provision under the Act to challenge the same.  That would defeat
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 544
544
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
the whole purpose of the Act and the contention is also against
the scheme of the Act.  The whole purpose of Section 16(5)(a) is
to see whether the District Magistrate has passed a lawful order
in the matter of either allotment or release. The question of release
or allotment arises only if there is a vacancy.  Once the finding is
that there is no vacancy, the same is certainly open to be pursued
by way of review under Section 16(5)(a) as otherwise, the order
would seal the fate of a landlord or an applicant for allotment.
That is not the purpose of the Act and the scheme of the provision.
Therefore, the District Magistrate was justified in invoking its
review jurisdiction under Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 16 of the
Act. [Paras 4, 5] [546-F-H; 547-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10449
of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.2009 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34930 of 2004.
S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Mangal Prasad, Ankur Yadav, Ms. Asha
Gopalan Nair, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ranjit Kumar, P.N. Mishra. Sr. Advs., Binu Tamta, Rishi Raj
Sharma, Ms. Saumya Jaykaran Singh, Ankur Prakash, Ashutosh Kumar
Sharma, Vinay Garg, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KURIAN, J. 1. Whether a Review under Section 16(5)(a) of
The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short, “the Act”) in respect of an order regarding
vacancy is maintainable, is the only question of law arising for
consideration in this case.  Section 16(5)(a) reads as under :-
“Where the landlord or any other person claiming to be a
lawful occupant of the building or any part thereof comprised
in the allotment or release order satisfies the District
Magistrate that such order was not made in accordance with
clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of sub-section
(1), the District Magistrate may review the order:
Provided that no application under this clause shall be
entertained later than seven days after the eviction of such
person.”
RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH. LRS. v. ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLIES)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
2. Sh. S. R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, submits that the only order that is open to review is an order
passed under Section 16(1)(a) or (b) either for release or for all
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.