LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. versus ANAND SWARUP
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
:ISS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. v. ANAND SWARUP November 6, 1973 [P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, S. N. DwNEDI AND P. K. GoSWAMI, JJ.] U.P. Govemmcnr Prcmisea (Rent Recovery & Eviction) . .Acr, 1952 Ss. 4, 6 .and 12_whcrhrr rht At't applicable. ro a cast where lcrrullf !tad b<tn dont prior 10 tl" passing of rite .Act-Pracllce a11d Procedu~-Wiltrit;r grounds rai.ttd before rite Higlr Court bur reicued or even nor consrdcrtd by 11 could bt t<can- wwtd in r/le Supreme Court. The District Magistrate. Ghwnbad ( ucfcndant·appdlam l is•ued a noti~ ·to the plaintiff (respondent) under s. 3. of the U.P, Government PremiSe> ( Rent Recovery ood Eviction) .'l.ct, 1952 calhng upo_n lum to va~ate the Gm:emmcnt ,p,.,mises which he said were under the plamlllfs unauthonscd .occupation. By another nolicc U.ued under •· 12 of the Act he asscss~d th.e platnltff to damal!<$ The plaintiff ftled a smt praying for ll permanent m;uncllon nsamst the defen- -dant restraining him from recoverin~ tbe amount and f~om threatcniog io e1ict .him (rom the ~remL•es. The defendants contested the suot on the ~round, among others, that the premise• had been requisitioned under the Defence of India Rul01 in 19~6 and derequisitioned Lo 19SS nnd during the 3bove period of l'equi- si:ion tbe plaintiff remained in posse>Sior. of the suit premises without any valid .allotment order under the Act. The plnintiff was. therefore. osscsscd on occo"ot of his unauthorise<l use and occupation during the period of requisition. The trio! court Lle<reed the •uit and gmnted the relief of permonenl injunclion 3gainst tbe defendarA. ' Before the High Court tho defend;u~ts submitled that the suit premises being -Government premises .. withtn tbe meunin~ or the Act. th~ suit was barred under s, IS of the/lct. Then: waa disrute betw.cn the parties with regard to the l~lum of re~w~uoon of the pr<mises. Without dealing with this point the Hogh Court diSnmsed the appeal relying upon Its earlier decision in S/tri Sripar ./lJl/ v, District Mu~:isuate. Banartu and held that the Act cou!J not be made applc:'>ble to a c::osc where the letting ha~ bun done prior to the p:.;sinJ: of the ;-ct. ar.d that ~nee the plaontolf camo onto possession of the prelll.i«s before .he date of p01Mtng of the A<:t. St:lte nction under the Act Wll.! invnlid and s. U ·;;;~: ~u~~r to the suiL The corrc:tness of tbK decision was questioned before Pismissinx the ~opeaJ. abl HELD:. (i) Tile conclusion of the High Court that the Act was not applic· · e to a =• "'here leuong had been done or requi•itioo bod been mode or ~authorLS<d occupauon bad cornmenccd prior to the passin~t of the Act clearh' nrr":a~~unter IO t~e S<:heme and purpo<e or the Act. A time bam:d claim ror fo tb of rent mogbt n~t be recovemblc un~er "" 4 & 6 but •n arrear of real ·nriear •.;dc~~ery of which the period of limitation hod r.<>t expired would be The 5eCOOd co~~~t~nr~co,·ered by the proceduro oro,iJ<d for unJer .s. 4 ~nJ 6. Government poem;,..!' th~~ tho rent due should be on account of ·occupnuon fJ be perm,.sible under S enever lh<'C two cor.<litions nre "lthfied it wou. particular Ca.'lCC tho p~~~~& 6. t~ rhcover the nrrears or rent even thou~h ::t the Act. Before the commc 011~ t uvo been let before lite contmenccmtnt recoverir-1 the •rre:ors of rent"cement of tho Act •uh was the only remedy for the Hrreur< of rent 10 th 0 But the \ct Rave nnothor ren~~:dy for recovcn~ Vested liohility in any pr~du~\erTheol. There is neither v"'teJ ri~bt nor ~ 'fiCemi>et hod no Vt\lCl.! riRht . 0 c :~nant or a tre"'r:anr:r or the Go,-ernO'l(n rl:scd. occupoulon of any Go~~n!he ~Uil P!'~dun:. The wordl\ "j, in unauthO· provulcd tor in that ocction ~llt~rem•~' In s. 12 ,how thnt the pro:edure outhothed oecup~·ion whe, amlog t pu,.ucd lor recovering dama<res for un· oprcmi,cs. So, ev~n thou~ to. re~P: 1"~r wn' In otcupotloo of ony Govcrt\m<hnt '"' P nmtoJT hau occupied the prenti•<"S before t • B c D E G A c D E F G li.P. S'ftdE V. ANAND SWARUP (Goswami, /.) 189- commencement of the Act it would be open to the Government to pursue the- remedy provided for in s. 12 provided the premises were "government premises". U92A-H1 View contra i~ Sliri SriPat Ral v. The D[slrict Magistrate, Banaras [19SS} A.L.J. 681, held mcorrect. (ii) No valid order of requisition under r. 81(2)(bb) of Defence of India Rules could be passed by the Dist. Magistrate nor was any notific!Nion containing
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.