Date of the Judgment: 08 February 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 88
Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Can a District Magistrate review an order regarding a building’s vacancy under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question, clarifying the scope of review powers under the Act. This judgment clarifies that a finding of vacancy is a pre-condition for an order of allotment or release and is subject to review. The bench comprised of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the opinion authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.
Case Background
The case revolves around a dispute concerning a property in Varanasi. The core issue was whether the District Magistrate could review an order related to the vacancy of a building under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlord had been pursuing litigation for the release of the premises since 1978. The appellants were occupying the premises, which was also the subject matter of a civil suit.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1978 | Landlord began pursuing litigation for the release of the premises. |
| 1981 | Civil Suit No. 375 of 1981 was filed before the II Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, concerning the cancellation of a sale deed related to the disputed premises. |
| Present | The appellants are currently occupying the premises, which is the subject matter of the suit. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court held that the District Magistrate was justified in invoking its review jurisdiction under Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view, affirming the District Magistrate’s power to review vacancy orders.
Legal Framework
The case primarily concerns Section 16 of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Specifically, Section 16(1) deals with the allotment and release of vacant buildings, and Section 16(5)(a) provides for the review of orders made under Section 16(1)(a) or (b).
Section 16(1) of the Act states:
“Allotment and release of vacant building – (1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate may by order – (a) require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building but not appurtenant land alone, to any person specified in the order (to be called an allotment order); or (b) release the whole or any part of such building, or any land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord (to be called a release order):”
Section 16(5)(a) of the Act states:
“Where the landlord or any other person claiming to be a lawful occupant of the building or any part thereof comprised in the allotment or release order satisfies the District Magistrate that such order was not made in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of sub-section (1), the District Magistrate may review the order: Provided that no application under this clause shall be entertained later than seven days after the eviction of such person.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellants argued that a review under Section 16(5)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, is only permissible for orders passed under Section 16(1)(a) or (b), which specifically relate to allotment or release orders.
- They contended that an order regarding the finding of a vacancy itself cannot be reviewed under Section 16(5)(a), as it is not an order for allotment or release.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the District Magistrate has the power to review any incorrect order regarding a vacancy.
- They submitted that a finding of vacancy is a prerequisite for an order of allotment or release. Therefore, if the finding of vacancy is incorrect, it should be open to review.
- They argued that if the technical argument of the appellants is accepted, there would be no way to challenge an incorrect order regarding vacancy, which would defeat the purpose of the Act.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission: Review under Section 16(5)(a) is limited to orders under Section 16(1)(a) or (b) |
|
| Respondent’s Submission: District Magistrate can review any order regarding vacancy |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a review under Section 16(5)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, is maintainable in respect of an order regarding vacancy.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a review under Section 16(5)(a) is maintainable for an order regarding vacancy? | Yes, a review is maintainable. | The Court held that a finding of vacancy is a pre-condition for an order under Section 16(1)(a) or (b). Therefore, if the finding of vacancy is incorrect, it should be open to review under Section 16(5)(a). |
Authorities
The Court did not rely on any external authorities or precedents in this judgment. The decision was based on the interpretation of Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 16(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | The court interpreted that this section deals with “allotment and release of vacant building” and that a finding of vacancy is a pre-condition for an order under this section. |
| Section 16(5)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | The court interpreted that this section allows for review of orders under Section 16(1) and that this review power extends to the finding of vacancy, which is a pre-condition for allotment and release. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that review is only for allotment/release orders | Rejected. The Court held that the review power under Section 16(5)(a) extends to the finding of vacancy. |
| Respondent’s submission that the District Magistrate can review any order regarding vacancy | Accepted. The Court agreed that an incorrect finding of vacancy is subject to review under Section 16(5)(a). |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Section 16(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court interpreted this section as dealing with the “allotment and release of vacant buildings” and emphasized that a finding of vacancy is a prerequisite for any order under this section.
- Section 16(5)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court interpreted this section as providing the power to review orders made under Section 16(1), and clarified that this review power extends to the finding of vacancy, which is a precondition for allotment or release.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court emphasized that the core purpose of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, is to regulate the allotment and release of vacant buildings. The court reasoned that if the finding of vacancy itself is not open to review, it would defeat the purpose of the Act. The court also considered the fact that the landlord had been pursuing litigation for the release of the premises since 1978, and that the landlord was the beneficiary in the review proceedings. The Court also took note of the fact that a civil suit was pending between the parties. The court highlighted the need to ensure that the District Magistrate’s orders are lawful and that the rights of all parties are protected.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Statutory Interpretation | 40% |
| Purpose of the Act | 30% |
| Fairness to Landlord | 20% |
| Pending Civil Suit | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Issue: Is a review of a vacancy order maintainable under Section 16(5)(a)?
Court’s Reasoning: Section 16(1) deals with allotment/release of vacant buildings.
Vacancy finding is a pre-condition for allotment/release.
If vacancy finding is incorrect, it must be reviewable.
Section 16(5)(a) allows review of orders under 16(1).
Conclusion: Review of a vacancy order is maintainable under Section 16(5)(a).
Key Takeaways
- A District Magistrate’s order regarding the vacancy of a building is subject to review under Section 16(5)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
- The finding of a vacancy is a prerequisite for an order of allotment or release under Section 16(1) of the Act.
- The Supreme Court directed the trial court to dispose of the pending civil suit within six months.
- The status quo with regard to possession shall continue till the suit is finally disposed of by the trial court.
- This judgment ensures that orders regarding vacancy are not final and can be reviewed if they are not in accordance with the law.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to dispose of Suit No. 375 of 1981 expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of the judgment. The Court also clarified that the suit would be tried on its own merits and that the status quo with regard to possession shall continue until the suit’s final disposal.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a finding of vacancy is a pre-condition for an order under Section 16(1)(a) or (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and an order regarding vacancy is subject to review under Section 16(5)(a) of the Act. This clarifies the scope of review powers of the District Magistrate and ensures that orders regarding vacancy are not final and can be reviewed if they are not in accordance with the law. There is no change in the previous position of law but the court has clarified the interpretation of the provision.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajendra Kumar Verma vs. Additional District Magistrate clarifies that the District Magistrate has the power to review orders regarding building vacancies under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This ensures that all orders, including those related to vacancy, are subject to scrutiny and can be corrected if they are not in accordance with the law. The court also directed the expeditious disposal of a related civil suit and maintained the status quo regarding possession of the property.