Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – s.16(5)(a) – Allotment and release of vacant building – Whether a Review u/s.16(5)(a) of the Act in respect of an order regarding vacancy is maintainable – Held: The whole purpose of s.16(1) is for “allotment and release of vacant building” – Unless there is a finding regarding vacancy, there cannot be either allotment or release – It is a pre-condition for an order u/s.16(1)
(a) or (b) – The whole purpose of s.16(5)(a) is to see whether the District Magistrate has passed a lawful order in the matter of either allotment or release – The question of release or allotment arises only if there is a vacancy – Once the finding is that there is no vacancy, the same is certainly open to be pursued by way of review u/s.16(5)(a) as otherwise, the order would seal the fate of a landlord or an applicant for allotment – That is not the purpose of the Act and the scheme of the provision.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The whole purpose of Section 16(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as the title indicates, is for “allotment and release of vacant building”. Unless there is a finding regarding vacancy, there cannot be either allotment or release. It is a precondition for an order under Section 16(1)(a) or (b). The appellant submitted that the only order that is open to review is an order passed under Section 16(1) (a) or (b) either for release or for allotment, since those are the only two contingencies dealt with under Section 16(1). If the technical argument advanced by the appellant is adopted, the order attains finality and there is no provision under the Act to challenge the same. That would defeat the whole purpose of the Act and the contention is also against the scheme of the Act. The whole purpose of Section 16(5)(a) is to see whether the District Magistrate has passed a lawful order in the matter of either allotment or release. The question of release or allotment arises only if there is a vacancy. Once the finding is that there is no vacancy, the same is certainly open to be pursued by way of review under Section 16(5)(a) as otherwise, the order would seal the fate of a landlord or an applicant for allotment. That is not the purpose of the Act and the scheme of the provision. Therefore, the District Magistrate was justified in invoking its review jurisdiction under Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 16 of the Act. [Paras 4, 5] [546-F-H; 547-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.