LexSRI KRISHNA KHANNA versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANPUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SRI KRISHNA KHANNA
~.
709'
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANPUR AND ORS.
February 26, 1975.
[K. K. MATHEW, P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
U.P. (Temporary) Control df Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, Sections 3, 7
and 7A and Control of Rem and Eviction Rules, 1949, Rules 3, 4, 5 and 6-
lntimation of racancy by landlord-Allotment order made afrcr expiry af rflc
ri'quircd period-Allotment order, if i11valid.
Compromise Decree-Compromise void, being w1/awful
a11d
opposed to
public policy-Respo11dent. if committed fraud in ignoring
void
compromise
while l•Pf'fyi11g for eviction of appellant.
The appellant who is the owner of the building bearing No.
24/6, Tulsa
Kathi, Kanpur, lives in the upper floor of the building with his son and other
members of the family.
There are two shops in the ground floor in
which
tenants had been inducted.
One of the shops has been in possession of Raghu.
nath Prasad Mehrotra, respondent no. 3 and his brother Kanahyalal Mehrotra
who have been carrying on the business of Druggists and Chemists in the said
shop as partners of the firm Pioneer Drug Stores. The other shop was in the
teaancy of Bata Shoe Company Ltd. Since the said
Company
had taken
another shop on rent sometime in the year 1961 it was about to vacate the shop
in the building of the appellant. He, therefore,
filed an application on
7 .. J 1-1961 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Rent Controller) with
a copy to the District Magistrate, Kanpur under Rule 6 of the Control of Rent
and Eviction Rules, 1949 framed under Section 17 of the U.P.
(Temporary)
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 praying for the release of the shop in
his favour on the ground that he requ,ired the ao:ommodation for his own use
for establishing a· business for his son.
On 2-5-1962. respondent No.· 3 made
an application under section 7 ( 2) of the Act for allotment of the accommoda-
tion to him. There were four more applicants under section 7(2). The shop
was actually vacated by Bata Shoe Company on 15-8-1962. On 16-8-1962 inti-
mation was given by the apPellant to the Re.nt Controller about the vacancy of
the shop in accordance with section 7(1 ). The Additional District Magistrate,
to whom proceedings had been transferred, made an order on 17-9-1962 refus-
ing to release the shop to the appellant and directed its allotment to respondent
No. 3. In pursuance of the orc!er made in his favour,
the respondent got
actual possession of the shop from the appellant who had occupied the shop fn
the meantime.
Before the filing of the application by the third respondent on 2-11-1962
under section 7A of the Act, the appellant had filed on 22-9-IQ62,
suit
No.
132/ I 962 in the Court of First Civil Judge at Kan,pur challenbing the allot-
ment order of the Additional District
Magistrate and the Rent Controller
i\mpleading the third respondent as the sole defendant in the suit. A decree
for permanent injunction was asked for.
Interim injunction was granted. The
suit ended in compromise on 11-10-1%2. The appellant filed an application
for review on 17-11-1962 before the Rent Controller asking him to review bis
e·{·parte order dated 15-11-1962 made under section 7A of the Act chiefly on
two grounds viz. (!) that no notice was served upon the appellant; (2) that
the third respondent had obtained the order fradulently by suppressing the fact
of compromise entered in Suit No. 13211962. The Rent Controller refused to
review his oruer and disrnissed the application on 8-1-1963. The appellant on
the same date i.e. on 8-1-1963 filed a petition in the Allahabad
High
Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution to challeng~ the various orders of allot-
ment and delivery of possession made by 1 ~spondents I and 2 from time tc
time.
The Writ J>etition was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 7-5-1963.
Special Appeal No. 254/1963 was dismissed by a Bench of the Allahabad High
Court on 3-2-1964.
The present appeal was preferreti in this Court on grant
of certificate by the High Court.
·.110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 3 S.C.R.
It was contended on behalf of the appellanC that
(i) The order of allotment havini not been made within 30 days of
the receipt oi' the intimation sent by the landlord under s1:ction
7 (1) (a) of the Act as required by Rule 3 of the Rules was
llltr11
~ire~ and void;
(ii) Respondent No. 3 had no right to apply for
possession
under
sectionExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.