RAM NARAYAN SHARMA versus SHAKUNTALA GAUR

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 29-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM NARAYAN SHARMA 
v. 
SHAKUNTALA GAUR 
APRIL 29, 2002 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction: 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
C Act, 1972: Sections 16(/)(a), 16(/)(b), 18 and 21(/)(a). 
Allotment-Prospective allottee-Right to oppose-Exercise of-Held, 
the prospective allottees shall have no right to oppose the release petition 
moved by the landlord-On facts held, since the accommodation stood allotted 
D before the landlady acquired right in the property, the allottee could oppose 
the release petition. 
E 
Release Petition-On the ground of bonafide requirements-Landlord 
could not move such an application for a period of 3 years as per provisions 
contained in Section 21(/)(a). 
Revision Petition-On the ground that notice was not served to other 
legal heir of the deceased landlord-Property in dispute settled in favour of 
heirs other than Revision Petitioner-Landlady moved an application for being 
impleaded as revisionist-Petition became inconsequential and infructuous-
Landlady not allowed to take advantage by defeating the provision of the Law 
F to get the premises vacated from allottee. 
Appellant moved an application for allotment of suit premises under 
Section 16(1Xa) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act Landlord of the premises died during the pendency 
of the allotment proceedings. Appellant moved an application for substitution 
G of the two sons of deceased-landlord as heirs, which was allowed, but they 
did not contest the application for allotment Rent Control and Eviction 
Officer allotted the premises to the appellant who took possession of the same. 
Later on, one of the sons of the deceased-landlord filed a Revision Petition 
challenging the order of allotment on the ground that other children of the 
H deceased-landlord (other than the revision petitioner) had not been served 
562 
• .. 
-
• 
.. 
> 
R.N. SHARMA v. SHAKUNTALA GAUR 
563 
notice ofallotment proceedings. Jn the meanwhile the two sons of the deceased-
landlord as a consequence of settlement in arbitration proceedings, became 
owners of the suit premises and they had transferred the suit premises in 
favour of the respondent who moved an application in the pending Revision 
Petition for being impleaded as revisionist No. 2. However, the Revision 
Petitioner moved an application not pressing his pending Revision Application. 
Civil Court allowed the revision Petition and set aside the order of allotment 
in favour of the appellant and remanded the case to the Rent Control and 
Eviction Officer to dispose of the same on merits. A Writ Petition preferred 
against the said order was rejected. 
Transferee-Respondent moved an application for release of 
accommodation on the ground of bona.fide requirements, which was dismissed. 
Consequently an order of allotment was also passed. Aggrieved, respondent 
preferred Revision Petitions, and the Court set aside the Order of allotment 
and released the accommodation in favour of the respondent. Appellant filed 
Writ Petition against the order of release of accommodation and it was 
dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that Revisional Court exceeded its 
jurisdiction in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Act and High Court 
erred in not taking note of the same as reappraisal of evidence for recording 
of finding of facts is not permissible. 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
HELD: 1. A prospective allottee shall have no right to oppose an 
application for release moved by the landlord. The need of the landlord is 
bona.fide or not is a matter for the satisfaction of the District Magistrate and 
on being so satisfied, an order of release could be passed. The Release 
application is to be disposed of first before passing an order on the application 
for allotment. But in the instant case the position is very peculiar which has 
not been properly appreciated in correct perspective. [570-G-H; 571-A-B) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1.2. The position that emerges is that respondent was not the landlady G 
when the accommodation was allotted to the appellant nor later on when the 
two sons of deceased-landlord became owners, Revision Petitioner's interest 
in property coming to an end, the revision filed by him even tho_11gh it was 
pending, it was an inconsequential and infructuous petition. The respondent 
had purchased the house from the sons of the deceas

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