Case Note & Summary
The petitioner owned premises bearing No. 1-A Beli Road, Allahabad, which had been occupied by Justice Oak since 1950 and later as Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court until his retirement in May 1971. The petitioner lived at 101/108 Katra Bakhtiari, described as congested, unhygienic, and requiring reconstruction costing about Rs. 40,000. In November 1970, the petitioner applied under Rule 6 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for release of the Beli Road premises after Justice Oak's retirement, undertaking to vacate the other house. The Chief Justice recommended the release, but the District Magistrate rejected the application on 3 May 1971. The State Government stayed all allotment proceedings on 6 May 1971. After Justice Oak vacated in May 1971, he delivered possession to the petitioner, who moved into the premises and informed the Rent Controller. On 8 July 1971, the District Magistrate passed an order of requisition under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947, requisitioning the premises for the residence of Justice D. S. Mathur for three years or earlier if the purpose was exhausted. The order recited that the owner was said to be in possession but living in his own house at Katra Bakhtiari and so no alternative accommodation needed to be provided. The petitioner challenged this order under Article 32. The core legal issues were whether the second proviso to Section 3 applied to the petitioner in actual occupation, whether the District Magistrate had to hold an inquiry and hear the petitioner before requisitioning, and whether the petitioner's occupation was unlawful under Section 7 of the Eviction Act. The petitioner argued that no notice or inquiry was held, no suitable alternative accommodation was provided, the Katra Bakhtiari house was unfit for habitation, and the deprivation of property without hearing violated fundamental rights. The State contended that the second proviso did not apply because the petitioner was not in actual occupation or his occupation was unlawful; the District Magistrate's opinion was subjective and required no inquiry. The Supreme Court, speaking through Ray J., rejected the State's contentions. Section 7 of the Eviction Act only required notices of vacancy and empowered the District Magistrate to control letting; it did not bar a landlord from taking possession after a tenant vacated. Thus the petitioner's occupation was lawful and actual. The second proviso to Section 3 of the Requisition Act prohibited requisitioning accommodation in actual occupation unless the District Magistrate formed an opinion that suitable alternative accommodation existed or had been provided. The existence of alternative accommodation is a question of fact, and the opinion cannot be formed by imagination. The District Magistrate had to hold an inquiry and give the occupant an opportunity to be heard. Relying on A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, the Court held that the principles of natural justice apply to administrative inquiries affecting rights, and deprivation of property required compliance with audi alteram partem. The District Magistrate's recital that no alternative accommodation was needed because the petitioner lived elsewhere was factually incorrect and made without inquiry. The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the requisition order. The Court held that the order was invalid for failure to hold an inquiry, non-application of mind, and violation of natural justice. The District Magistrate was required to determine the existence of suitable alternative accommodation after due inquiry and opportunity of hearing before any future requisition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32; U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947, Section 3, second proviso - Requisition of premises in actual occupation affects right to property; before depriving occupant, District Magistrate must hold inquiry and give opportunity to be heard; opinion cannot be formed without ascertaining facts - Held that District Magistrate failed to comply with principles of natural justice by not holding inquiry into alternative accommodation (Pages 408-410). B) Property Law - Requisition of Accommodation - Actual Occupation and Alternative Accommodation - U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947, Section 3, second proviso - Second proviso prohibited requisitioning accommodation in actual occupation unless District Magistrate formed opinion that suitable alternative accommodation existed or had been provided; existence of alternative accommodation is a question of fact requiring inquiry; recital that owner lived elsewhere insufficient - Held that order of requisition without such inquiry was invalid (Pages 408-410). C) Rent Control and Eviction - Landlord's Right to Possession - Section 7 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 - Section 7 did not bar landlord from taking possession after tenant vacated; landlord's occupation was lawful; District Magistrate's contention of unlawful occupation rejected - Held that petitioner was in actual lawful occupation of the premises (Pages 407-408). D) Administrative Law - Subjective Satisfaction vs. Objective Inquiry - U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947, Section 3 - Statutory opinion must be based on ascertainable facts; District Magistrate cannot determine alternative accommodation without investigation and hearing; principle in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India followed - Held that District Magistrate's order suffered from non-application of mind and violation of natural justice (Pages 409-410).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second proviso to Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 applied to the petitioner in actual occupation; whether the District Magistrate was required to hold an inquiry and give an opportunity of hearing before requisitioning the premises; whether the petitioner's occupation was unlawful under Section 7 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the District Magistrate dated 11 July 1971 requisitioning the petitioner's premises. The Court held that the petitioner was in actual lawful occupation of the premises, the second proviso to Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 applied, and the District Magistrate had to form an opinion regarding suitable alternative accommodation after holding an inquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing. The requisition order was invalid for failure to comply with natural justice and non-ascertainment of facts.
Law Points
- A District Magistrate cannot requisition accommodation in actual occupation without forming opinion based on inquiry that suitable alternative accommodation exists
- opinion must be based on facts
- not subjective imagination
- principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem apply to administrative inquiries affecting property rights
- Section 7 of U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act
- 1947 does not bar landlord from taking possession after tenant vacates
- second proviso to Section 3 of U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act
- 1947 protects actual occupant
