SHRI SWAROOP NARAIN SRIVASTAVA versus THE IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 438 · Decided: 08-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI SWAROOP NARAIN SRIVASTAVA 
v. 
THE IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. 
' 
AUGUST 8, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972: Sections 12(3) and (4), 16(1)(a) (b). 
C 
'Vacant Bui/ding'-i..andlord's application for release ordei--Fomier 
tenants' application for re-allotmen1:-1Jrder--Fo1111er tenants' application for 
re-a//otmenl-f'rior and preferable consideration of-Held: Landlord's ap-
plication require prior and preferable consideration. 
UP. Urbran Buildings (Letting, Rent and Eviction Rules, 1972 : Rules 
D 10, 13(4) and 20(6}-Provis<>--Applicability of 
By virtue or an allotment order made under the provisions or the 
· U.P. Buildings (Regulation or Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, S 
became a tenant in a house belonging to the appellant-landlord. On bis 
E death, respondent Nos. 2 to 4, his wife and sons became joint tenants or 
the disputed house. As one or the joint-tenants was allotted a separate 
reside.ntlal house in the same locality the disputed house became vacant 
building within the meaning or sub-section (3) and ( 4) or Section 12 or the 
Act. Thereafter the appellant-landlord made an application under Section 
16(1)(b) or the Act for release or the disputed house in bis favour while 
F the respondent-tenants made an application under section 16(1)(a) ror 
re-allotment District Magistrate made a release order In ravour of the 
appellant on the ground that Landlord's application was to be decided in 
prererence to that or the former-tenants. On revision the Additional Dis· 
trict Judge set aside the order or the Additional District magistrate and 
G remitted the case to him with a direction to decide reallotment application 
made by the rormer tenants In prererence to the application made by the 
Landlord for release order in bis favour. The High Court upheld the order 
or the Additional District Judge. The appellant-landlord preferred appeal 
before this Court. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
438 
S.N.SRIVASfAVA v. TIJEIVIHADDL DIS1T. JUDGE[VENKATACHALA,J.] 439 
HELD : 1. The District Court, as well as, the High Court had fallen A 
into a grave error in thinking that the hardship to which the former 
tenants would be put could be obviated in the event the building which had 
become vacant on account of its falling vacant under sub-sections (3) and 
(4) of Section 12 of the Act is allotted to them, when such a view cannot 
receive support either from the provisions of the Act or from the B 
provisions of Rules. All that bas happened is when sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 
of the Rules prohibited the making of the application by certain persons, 
proviso (2) thereto enables persons like respondents 2 to 4 who must be 
deemed to have vacated the residential building to make an application 
for reallotment of such building. If that be so, permissibility to make an 
application for reallotment by respondents 2 to 4, cannot entitle them for C 
prior consideration and disposal of their application for reallotment by 
the District Magistrate in preference to the application for release made 
by the landlord, the appellant or any other applications of the persons who 
are given preferential claim for allotment of a vacant building under the 
provisions of the Act and the Rules. (442-F to H, 443-A] 
D 
2. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 13 expressly states that unless an application 
made by the landlord for release of a vacant building is rejected, no 
allotment of the vacant building covered by that application could be made. 
If in terms requires consideration of the application for release of vacant 
building at the first instance in preference to other application for allot-
E 
ment. Thus the Rule requires the consideration of the application for 
release made by the landlord in respect of the vacant building and decision 
thereon in preference to consideration of any other application for allot-
ment or re- allotment made In respect cif that vacant building. (444-B, CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5451 of F 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.83 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 6189 of 1982. 
G.L. Sanghi, Dbruv Mehta and S.K. Mehta for the Appellant. 
G 
R.K. Maheshwari and Vineet Maheshwari for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATACHALA, J. Special leave sought for in this petition is H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A granted and

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