TIRLOK SINGH & CO. versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 29-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
912 
TIRLOK SINGH & CO. 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LUCKNOW & ORS. 
March 29, 1976 
[Y. V. (JiANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Right 
to 
be . heard-Lawful occupant of a building has no right to be-
heard at tl1e stage of ''notifying the vacc!llcy'' bv the District Maoislrate b1.fore 
passing an order of allot1nent or 1elease-U.P. Urban Building~ (Regul~uion 
of Letting, Re111 and Eviction) Act, 13, 1972, S. 16 read with Rule 8 af U.P. 
Urban Buildings 
(Regulf1tlon of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972-
Scope of. 
Under section 12 of the U.P. Rent Act bo~h the landlord and the tenant 
ar'! required to intimate a vacancy to the Distr:ct Magistrate, as and when a 
vacancy is deemed to have occurred in the circumstances specified therein. 
()n 
the in!i1n;1tion of a vacancy, the District Mag:.Strate may under section 16 
pasc; 
eith~r an order allottin~ the premises to a person specified by him or 
he can release the vacancy in favour of the landlofd on being satisfied that i 
he requires the pre.mi.<les for the purposes mentioned in sectio'n 16(2). Sµch 
an order can however be passed only after "ascertainment of vacancy" under 
Rule· 8 of U.P. Rent Rules 1972, 
through the Rent 
Inspector 
and 
after 
"notifying the vacancy" by display oh the notice board of the Di3trict !\1agis-
trate for a period of three days from the date of such notificat,ion. 
For the purposes of disposal of an application made by respondents 2 and 
3 n/s 16(1)(b) of the Act for the "release" of certain residential premises 
of' ·which the appellants claim to be their tenants, the District Magistrate passed 
an order on May 20th 1974 viz. "Let the vacahcy be notified" admi.ttedly 
without granting any hearing tO' the appellants, which the appellants challenged 
as violative of the principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" 
in 
the 
Allahabad 
High Court. The High Court, though it granted an interim stay, after show 
cause notice rejected the Writ Petition summarily with a brief speaking- order 
oh the fi:TOund that the petition was premature and that the proper remedy 
lay to them u/s 16(5)(a) of the Act for review of the order directing that 
the vacancy be notified. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed a 
petition for special leave in this Court. 
During its pendency, the respondent 
No. 1 issued a notice to the appellants that the release applic1tion filed h'· 
rcspond"~nts 2 and 3 would be takeh up for hearing on May 19th 1975 and 
on May 20th 1975 passed an order of release, after refusing to stay further 
proceedings. 
On May 30th 1975, the appellants filed an appeal against the 
release order to the District Judge Lucknow, v..110 hasi stayed further proceed-
ing.o; and t11e appeal is pending. The question is whether the flrder dated Ma,. 
20th 1974 "\\'as illegal for the reasoh that it was passetl "''ithont affording a 
hearing to the appellants. 
Dismissing the appeals the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) A study of the scheme of the Act and its provisions ~how 
the untenability of the contention as reQ:ards the illegalitv of the order passed 
by respondent No. I. [945A] 
(ii) The Act does not provide for a hearing at the stage when the District 
Magistrate passes an order of allotment or release. 
[945-CJ 
(iii-1A'n order passed under rule 8(2) of the -q.P: Rent Rules for. "ascer-
tain~nt of va{;ancy" is what is meant 
by "notifying the 
vacancy'. 'The 
I>istrict Ma~istratc need not hear the parties before notifying 
the 
vacancy 
because under the scheme of the U.P. Rent Act an order notifying the vacancy 
does no injury and causes no prejudice to the interests of any party. A noti-
fication of the vacancy is a step-in-aid of an order of ~l1otn1ent or release a'n.--t 
it ic; onlv v.'hen such an order of a1lotment or release ts passed that the land-
lord or the tenant a~ the case may be have a grievance. 
Orders of allotpie?t 
and reJea~e are in the first instahce reviewable. u/s 16(5)(a.) by the D1stnct 
• 
TIRLOK SINGH & co. v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Chandrachud, J.) 
943 
Magistrate himself and an order passed u/s 16 is appealahle u/s 18. 
The Ao..:t 
thus conten1plates successive opportunities being afforded to persons 
'Yh~~e 
interests are likely to be 
affucted by 
an 
order passed 
oy 
the 
Dlstnct 
Magistrate. 
[945F-G, 946A, Cl 
(iv) In the instant case, the Writ Petition was premature in the sense th~~ 
the order impugned thereby did not affect the appellants' interest in the parti-
cular pren1ises. 
The 

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