RAMESH CHANDRA MISRA versus MAHENDRA TRIPATHI & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 19-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
128 
RAMESH CHANDRA MISRA 
v. 
MAHENDRA TRIPATHI & ORS. 
November 19, 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
lnterpretatio11 of statlltes-lf cw1 be cu11s1rued hepi11g object in l'iew-
Whether ol>ject to be gathered from the /a11gua1?e 11sed-U.P. Urban Building 
(Regulation of letting, rent and eriction) Act 1972-Scctions 3 (c), 11, 12. 13, 
16, 18-Rules 10 & 11-Application for allotment uj premises-Wheth"'· an w1-
authorised occupallt can apply-First come first served basis. 
In September, 1973, the appellant applied under section 16(1) (a) of the 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, rent and eviction) Act, 1972 for 
the allotment of a part of a house, which was actually occupied by him. Accord-
ing to the a,ppellant, he was included as a tenant by a person represenling himself 
to be the owner but who in fact was a tenant. 
In November, 1973, the first 
respondent also applied for allotment of the said premises. The Area Rationing 
Officer allotted the premises to the first respondent. The District J i..Kige allowed 
the appeal filed by the appellant, set aside the order of allotmept in favour of 
the first respondent and remanded the case to the· Rationing Officer to be decided 
afresh in accordance with law. .The District Judge pointed out that the Area 
Rationing Officer had ignored altogether rnle 11 of the Rules framed under the 
Act which required that in the matter of allotment the principle 'first come first 
served' should be followed. 
The District Judge also negatived the contention 
of the first respondent that the appellant's application was not maintainable since 
he was an unauthorised occupant. The Court held that there was no provision 
in the Act which bars an unauthorised occupant from applying for an allotment. 
In a writ petition filed by the first respondent the High Court quashed the order 
of the District Judge and restored the order made by the Area Rationing Officer. 
Section 11 of the Act provides that no person shall let any building. except 
in pursuance of an allotment order issued under section Iii. Section J 3 pro-
vides that no person shall occupy a building or part thereof whicli a landlord 
or tenant has ceased to occupy except under an order of allotment made under 
section 16. 
Under section 16 the District Magistrate is empowered to make an 
order requiring the landlord. to let any building which is or has fallen vacant 
or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building to any person specified in 
the order. An order under section J 6 is appealable under section 18. 
Tn exer-
cise of powers conferred by section 41 of the Act. the rules have been framed 
by the State Government. 
Rule 10 prescribe' the procedure for allotment. 
Tt 
provides that the application should be entered in the register after classifying 
them according to the priority of the categories. Rule 10 further provides that a 
building shall not be allotted to a person who is deemed to have ceased to occupy 
a building for a period of two years from the date of such deemed cessation. 
Rule 11 fixes order of priorities in allotment of residential buildings and 
it 
further provides that in each of the categories the principle 'first come first 
served' shall be followed. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD,: (1) The High Court in its judgment has not mentioned any provi-
sion in the Act which dissentitles unauthorised occupants from applying for allot-
ment. Rules 10(5) & (6) provide that certain persons should not ordinarilv be 
allotted a promises; the appellant does not fall \\ithin those categories. f131D-E] 
2. The High Court infers the disability· of an unauthorised occupant from 
applying for an allotment from the object of the Act. The object of the Act has 
to be gathered from its provisions. There is nothing in the Act which disentitles 
an unauthorised occupant from npplyipg for an allotment. 
[131H, 132A] 
1 
RAMESH CHANDRA v. MAHENDRA TRIP A THI (Gupta' f.) 12 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1976. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
the 20.8.1975 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at 
Luctnow in Civil Writ Petition No. 1062 of 1974). 
G. N. Dikshit and S. K. Bisaria, for the ApJ?ellant. 
D, Goburdhan, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GuPTA, J.-This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding 
under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Evi

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