Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a dispute over possession of a building in Banaras owned by respondent No.1, which was earlier in possession of a dancing girl and two musicians (respondents 2 and 3). Following an executive drive, dancing girls were ousted from the area, and the landlord claimed the building was not available for regulation of letting, but the authorities took a contrary view and considered it lettable. On 17.5.1972, an allotment order under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was passed in favour of the appellant Mohd. Nazir. According to the appellant, he was put in possession pursuant to the allotment order but was later ousted by the landlord and the dancer/musicians were put back in possession. The dancer subsequently died, and the musicians continued in possession under the landlord's protective umbrella. The appellant first moved the District Magistrate under Section 16(4) of the Act for restoration of possession. The District Magistrate refused, holding that the law required the allottee to be put in possession only once, and that obligation had been fulfilled, so in law the appellant was deemed in possession. The appellant then filed a civil suit against the landlord seeking restoration of possession. The Civil Court recorded a finding that since the appellant was never put in possession, the question of restoration could not arise. Armed with that finding, the appellant again approached the District Magistrate under Section 16(4), requesting to be put in possession as per the Civil Court's finding that he had never been put in possession. This time the District Magistrate allowed the request and ordered possession. The landlord and musicians filed a revision before the District Judge, who confirmed the order. However, in writ proceedings, the High Court set aside the District Magistrate's order, holding that the District Magistrate had no power to reinstate the appellant in possession when earlier, as per averment, possession had been delivered; that the Civil Court's judgment was not binding on the District Magistrate; and that the doctrine of res judicata applied. The Supreme Court examined Section 16(4) and held that the provision is plain: the District Magistrate is not only required to put the allottee in possession if he has not been able to obtain possession, but is eminently required to see that the allottee remains in possession without let or hindrance from the landlord or his henchmen; otherwise the right conferred under sub-section (4) would be illusory and a breeding ground for unnecessary litigation. The Court further held that the District Magistrate has not only to put back in possession the allottee but is otherwise empowered to pass all consequential and incidental orders to maintain possession. It found no question of res judicata arose on the facts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the District Magistrate's order directing eviction of unauthorised occupants and putting the appellant in possession of the building forthwith, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Restoration of Possession - District Magistrate's power under Section 16(4) to ensure continued possession - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 16(4) - The District Magistrate is not only required to initially put an allottee in possession but must see that the allottee remains in possession without let or hindrance from landlord or his henchmen; the power includes passing consequential and incidental orders to maintain possession; the High Court's view that the District Magistrate had no power to reinstate after earlier delivery was erroneous; Held that the right under Section 16(4) would be illusory if the allottee could be ousted with impunity. B) Civil Procedure - Res Judicata - Inapplicability to successive restoration applications - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 16(4) - The doctrine of res judicata does not bar a subsequent application under Section 16(4) when the earlier rejection was based on erroneous assumption that allottee was in possession; the Civil Court's finding that possession was never delivered negated that assumption; Held no question of res judicata arises in the fact situation.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Magistrate has power under Section 16(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to restore possession to an allottee who was ousted after initial delivery; and whether res judicata bars such restoration.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the District Magistrate's order directing eviction of unauthorised occupants and putting the appellant in possession of the building forthwith. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 16(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting
- Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1972 empowers District Magistrate to restore possession and ensure continued possession
- right under Section 16(4) includes passing consequential and incidental orders to maintain allottee's possession
- District Magistrate must see allottee remains in possession without let or hindrance
- doctrine of res judicata not applicable when earlier order based on erroneous assumption of possession
