SATYA NARAIN PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 13-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SATYA NARAIN PANDEY 
V. 
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 
JANUARY 13, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972-Section 2( J)(d)-lnter-pretation of. 
These matters involved the interpretation of section 2(1)(d) of the 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 
1972 (Act No. 13of1972). 
The landlords of a building known as Prem Talkies had let out 
the building to Sunil Sharma and another, and the lease to the Sharmas 
was a lease of the building simpliciter. The building was subject to the 
provisions of the ,Act above-said. The landlords obtained delivery of 
vacant possession of the building on 30.09.1984 through a suit for evic-
tion instituted by the landlords. The revision petition filed by the 
Sharmas in the High Court against the order of eviction was dismissed 
on lst August, 1985. After the Revision Petition of the Sharmas was 
dismissed, landlords proceeded with the renovation of the building, 
installation of plant, machinery, new furniture and electrical fittings, as 
they wished to let out the building alongwith the pfant, machinery, 
furniture and apparatus installed for running a cinema theatre. 
On February 5, 1986, an agreement of lease was executed between 
the landlords and the Mehrotras--respondents before this Court under 
r 
,..., 
1 
I ·l-
.... .,..
"' 
~ 
..._ 
y 
which the Mehrotras agreed to take the building fully equipped with 
•· 
projector, machines, fixtures and furniture for a period of five years~ 
with an option to renew. A lease-deed pursuant to the agreement of the 
\ 
lease between the landlord and the Mehrotras was entered into on 
30. 12.86 and actual possession of the bui(ding, it was claimed, was 
given to the Mehrotras on the 8th January, 1987. 
In the meantime, the appellant, Salya Narain Pandey, appeared 
to have made an application under s. 16 of the Act for allotment of the 
building in question to him. He claimed to have filed that application on 
25.9.86 and that, on the basis of that application, the Additional Dis-
trict Magistrate had called for a report from the Rent Control & Evic-
y 
H tion Inspector, who had submitted a report dated 28. 10.86, stating that 
678 
SATYA NARAIN PANDEY v. STATE OF U.P. 
679 
the building was vacant as on that date. On the other hand, the land·_ 
A 
lords fr ;m-:: .that the vacancy of the building had been declared on 
6.3.8~. :-. ll. notification calling for applications for allotment had 
been ,:.:ieu on 9.3.87 and the application by Pandey for allotment had 
been made only on 9.3.87. They also applied to the Additional District 
l\lagistrale on 23.3.87, requesting that a high-placed official 
should be sent to inspect the premises and submit a report, as the report 
B 
of the Eviction Inspector. had been obtained behind their back. The 
application was granted and the Sub-Divisional l\lagistrate submitted a. 
report on 28.4.87, which said that as on that date the building was a 
full-fledged building with all the equipments and was not vacant as it 
appeared to have been let out to the l\lehrotras under the agreements of 
5.2.86 and 30.12.86. In the meantime, the l\lehrotras, in pursuance of 
the lease deed entered into by them with the landlords, had applied on 
8. I.87 for the grant of a licence for running a cinema in the building in 
question. The application was granted by the Additional District 
l\lagistrate. 
c 
Pandey, who had applied for the allotment of the building fo him, 
~ felt aggrieved by the grant of the cinematographic licence to the 
· i\lehrotras. He filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the 
grant of the licence. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
Pandey, the appellant, then filed in thi~ Court Civil Appeal No. 1502 of 
~~ 198_7 by Special Leave against the decision of the High Court. 
D 
The Writ Petition of the landlords filed in the High Court against 
the order dated 6.3.87 of the Additional District l\lagistrate, declaring a 
E 
)i vacancy of the building in question and the notice dated 9.3.87 inviting 
applications for allotment of accommodation in respect thereof, and a 
similar writ petition filed by the l\lehrotras in the High Court, were 
disposed of by the High Court by a consolidated order dated 20.1 l.87, 
F 
by which the High Court had accepted the contentions of the petitioners 
and allowed the writ petitions setting aside the order dated 6.3.S7 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.