Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the validity of an allotment order under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for a structure that had lost its roof before the order was passed. The building in Meerut City was owned by the father of the contesting respondents, Sana Ullah, and had been leased to Deep Chand Gupta for five years. After the lease expired on 3 August 1974, the tenant surrendered vacant possession. On 20 August 1974, Ashok Kapil, the appellant, applied to the District Magistrate for allotment of the premises. The landlord objected on 3 September 1974, contending that the structure was not a 'building' because it had no roof. The District Magistrate found it was still a building and passed an allotment order; the District Judge in revision confirmed the order after remands. The Allahabad High Court, however, allowed the landlord's writ petition and quashed the allotment, holding that an order under Section 16 could be made only in respect of a building and not a construction that had ceased to be a building by the time of allotment. The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'building' in Section 3(i), which means a residential or non-residential roofed structure. The court noted that the definition is prefaced by 'unless the context otherwise requires', permitting contextual adaptations. It observed that the structure was a roofed building when it fell vacant, but the roof was later dismantled by the owner, leaving it roofless on the date of allotment. The court held that the District Magistrate, having commenced jurisdiction under Section 16(1) over a building that answered the definition when it fell vacant, did not lose jurisdiction merely because the building subsequently became roofless. It applied the maxim nullus commodum copere potest de injuria sua propria (no man can take advantage of his own wrong) to prevent the landlord from benefiting from his own act. The court also referred to general dictionary meanings showing that a building need not always have a roof. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the allotment order was restored. Considering the importance of the locality and the low rent, the court fixed monthly rent at Rs. 500 from 1 August 1996 onwards, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Statutory Interpretation - Definition of Building - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 3(i) - The definition of building as a residential or non-residential roofed structure is subject to contextual adaptation due to the prefatory words 'unless the context otherwise requires'; a roofless structure may still be a building in its general meaning outside the strict definition. The court reasoned that the District Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 16(1) continues if the structure answered the definition when it fell vacant, even if it subsequently became roofless due to the owner's act. Held that the allotment order remains valid despite the intervening roofless condition (Paras 1-4). B) Equity - Unclean Hands - Maxim 'No Man Can Take Advantage of His Own Wrong' - The landlord dismantled the roof after the tenant vacated, causing the structure to be roofless on the date of allotment; the court applied the maxim nullus commodum copere potest de injuria sua propria to prevent the landlord from benefiting from his own wrong. Held that the landlord cannot secure assistance of a court to enjoy the fruit of his own wrong, and liberal interpretation of 'building' is necessary to prevent such mischief (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order of allotment under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 can be made in respect of a structure which was a roofed building when it fell vacant but became roofless before the allotment order, particularly when the roof was dismantled by the landlord's own act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment of Allahabad High Court set aside. Allotment order restored. No order as to costs. Monthly rent fixed at Rs.500 from 1.8.1996 onwards.
Law Points
- building definition under Section 3(i) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting
- Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1972
- contextual interpretation
- District Magistrate jurisdiction under Section 16(1)
- maxim nullus commodum copere potest de injuria sua propria
- roofless structure can be building outside strict definition
