Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 concerning a residential house in Lucknow that had fallen vacant. The appellant was the landlord of House No. 395/31, Raj Bhawan, Kashmiri Mohalla, Lucknow, while respondents 2 to 4 were the former tenants, heirs of original tenant Sita Ram Shakya. The house had originally been allotted to Sita Ram Shakya, who died in 1973, and his heirs continued as joint tenants. In 1975, one of the joint tenants, Dr. R.R.P. Singh, obtained a separate allotment of another house in the same locality, which led to a legal question whether the disputed house had fallen vacant under the deeming provisions of Section 12(3) and (4) of the Act. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held in 1981 that the house had indeed fallen vacant. Following that determination, the landlord filed an application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act for release of the vacant house for his own bona fide use, while the former tenants filed an application under Section 16(1)(a) for reallotment of the same house to them. The Additional District Magistrate considered the landlord's release application first and granted it by order dated 24.8.1982, finding that the landlord required the house for his bona fide use. The former tenants challenged that order by filing a revision petition. The IVth Additional District Judge allowed the revision on 15.12.1982, set aside the release order, and remanded the matter with a direction that the reallotment application be decided first. The landlord then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 28.4.1983. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the landlord's application for release of a building that had fallen vacant under Section 12(3) and (4) of the Act should be considered in preference to an application by former tenants for reallotment of that building under Section 16. The Court examined the provisions of the Act and the U.P. Urban Buildings (Letting Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972. The District Court and the High Court had held that the former tenants' reallotment application needed prior consideration because a proviso to Rule 10(6) permitted persons who were deemed to have vacated the building to apply for reallotment, and such consideration was necessary to avoid hardship to them. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the mere permissibility to apply for reallotment did not confer priority over the landlord's release application. The Court focused on Rule 13(4) of the Rules, which states that a landlord's application for release shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month and that no allotment in respect of a building covered by such application shall be made unless the application has been rejected. This explicit provision, the Court reasoned, required the release application to be considered first. The Court concluded that the lower courts had fallen into grave error in thinking that the hardship to former tenants could be obviated by giving their reallotment application priority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the revisional court and the High Court, and restored the order of the Additional District Magistrate releasing the house to the landlord, with the modification that the former tenants or any person claiming through them in possession of the disputed house must hand over possession to the landlord forthwith. The Court also awarded costs of Rs.20,000 to the landlord appellant.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Priority of Applications for Vacant Residential Building - Landlord's Release Application Takes Precedence - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, Sections 12(3), 12(4), 16(1); U.P. Urban Buildings (Letting Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972, Rule 13(4) - A residential building fell vacant under Section 12(3) and (4) when a joint tenant obtained separate allotment; both landlord's release application under Section 16(1)(b) and former tenants' reallotment application under Section 16(1)(a) were pending. The Court interpreted Rule 13(4) which requires the landlord's release application to be decided within one month and prohibits allotment unless the release application is rejected. Held that the release application has to be considered first in preference to any application for allotment or reallotment. (Paras 1-4) B) Rent Control - Allotment Procedure - Permissive Right of Former Tenant Does Not Confer Priority - U.P. Urban Buildings (Letting Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972, Rule 10(6) proviso, Rule 13(4) - The former tenants relied on a proviso to Rule 10(6) enabling them to apply for reallotment to avoid hardship. The Supreme Court held that mere permissibility to apply for reallotment does not entitle former tenants to prior consideration over the landlord's release application. Held that hardship cannot override the express statutory priority conferred by Rule 13(4). (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application for release of a vacant residential building by the landlord under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 should be considered in preference to an application for reallotment by former tenants under Section 16(1)(a) when the building has fallen vacant under sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 12.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 15.12.1982 of the IVth Additional District Judge in Rent Revision No. 111 of 1982 and order dated 28.4.1983 of the High Court in W.P. No. 6189 of 1982, and restored the order dated 24.8.1982 of the Additional District Magistrate (City), Lucknow in Case No. 62/193 of 1982 with modification that respondents 2 to 4 or any person claiming through them in possession of the disputed house shall put the appellant in possession forthwith. Respondents 2 to 4 were directed to pay costs of Rs.20,000 to the appellant.
Law Points
- Rule 13(4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Letting Rent & Eviction) Rules
- 1972 requires landlord's release application to be decided first and prohibits allotment unless release application rejected
- mere permissibility for former tenants to apply for reallotment under Rule 10(6) proviso does not confer priority.
