S.P. JAIN versus KRISHNA MOHAN GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 04-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.P. JAIN 
v. 
KRISHNA MOHAN GUPTA & ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 1986 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SlNGH, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972, ss. 24A, 24B and 24C-I.andlord Governmen1 Servant-Directed to 
vacate government accommodation-Landlord in possession of ground floor 
of his own house- Whether entitled to. evict tenant in summary proceedings 
'dweliing house'-Meaning of 
Words & Phrases-'Dwelling House'-Meaning of 
A 
B 
c 
·'1 
The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act 
of1972 was amended in 1976 and Chapter IV A was added. Section 24A, s. 24B 
and s. 24C are contained in the said Chapter. They provide for summary trial of D 
eviction petitions in certain circumstances. By a N otifieation dated 17th 
February, 1982 issued under s.3 of the Cantonments (E.dension of Rent 
Control Laws) Act of 1957, the·Government extended to all the cantonments in 
the State of Uttar Pradesh the provisions of the Rent Act. 
The appellant-a government servant, was in occupation of the E 
>. 
government accommodation at Meerut. He was also owner of a house situated 
in the cantonment area in Meerut. The house had a ground floor and a first 
floor with common bathroom and latrine situated on the ground floor. It had 
also a common courtyard and a common entrance. The ground floor of the 
,... 
house was in his possession while the first floor had been let out to the 
-¥ 
respondent-tenant. 
F 
i.'ursuant to a notice received· by the appellant-landlord to va~te the 
government quarter, he fded an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant 
in respect of the first floor of the premises under s. 24 C of the U .P. Urban 
Jluildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 on 14th 
December, 1979. The resp01:1dent-tenant contested the application on the G 
ground that the appellant-landlord h_ad two residential houses-one in which 
he was living and the other in which the respondent-tenant was living and since 
the appellant-landlord was in possession of a residential accommodation, he 
had no right to get another residential accommodation vacated from the tenant 
under the provisions of s. 24B or 24Cof the said Act. The Delegated Authority 
411. 
H 
412 
SUPREME COUR r REPORTS 
[1987] I S.C.R. 
A 
allowed the petition by its order dated 17th August, 1981 and its order was 
confirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge. 
B 
Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge, the respondent-
tenant moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was 
contended by the respondent-tenant before the High Court that (i) Chapter IV-
A had been applied to the Cantonment areas on a subsequent date, i.e. 27th 
February, 1982, the Acf being not applicable to the accommodation in question 
in November, 1979 when the application under s.248 of the Act was fded by the 
respondent and as such the same was liable to be dismissed; and (ii) that as the 
appellant-landlord was living in the ground floor of the said house, petition -.\ 
under s.248 was not maintainable. The High Court upheld the second 
C 
contention of the respondent-tenant and set aside the order of eviction without 
deciding the question as to whether the Act would apply to buildings 
constructed and situated within the can~onment limit. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
D 
HELD: l(i) The whole purpose behind s.24A or s.14A of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1958 which are in pari mater.a is that when a landlord or a person 
who is in occupation of a government accommodation and has to leave that 
accommodation and yet he has residential building in the area in his own name 
or in the name of any member of his fa mil y, then such a person or landlord will 
have a right accrued to him to recover immediate possession Of the building let 
E 
out by him. The rationale behind these pwvisions or similar provisions is that 
when a government servant lets out his house and is without residential 
premises then if he is the owner of any residential building either in his name or 
in the name of any member of his family then he has a right to ask for immediate 
recovery of the said residential building. lt is an urgency provision to help the 
government servant to have residential acmmmodation vacated if he is obliged 
F 
to vacate his governmental residential ac·:ommodation. The proviso to s.24B 
deals with the situation where the landlord has more than one dwelling house, 
he will e

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