Special Appeal No. 502 of 1992. Case: Sudarshan Singh Bedi Vs Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Special Appeal No. 502 of 1992 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Atul Dayal and K.M. Dayal, Advs. |
| Judges | M.K. Mukherjee, C.J. and S.N. Agarwal, J. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 12, 14, 16, 25(2), 34, 34(8)(1); Companies Act, 1956 - Section 111(3); Rent Control Act ;High Court Rules - Rules 5; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - Rule 8, 8(2); Constitution of India - Articles 2... |
| Citation | 1993 (21) ALR 334, 1993 AWC 916 All |
| Judgement Date | December 17, 1992 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Sudhir Narain, J.
-
The maintainability of this Special Appeal depends upon the answer to the question as to whether the Rent Control and Eviction Officer acts as a Tribunal while he determines the question regarding vacancy of a building under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (In short the 'Act') A special appeal is maintainable under Chapter VIII Rules 5 of the Rules of the High Court. It bars special appeal against the order of a Tribunal. Rule 5 is reproduced below:
-
Special Appeal.--An appeal shall lie to the court from a Judgment (not being judgment parsed In the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court end not being an order made in the exercise of revisional Jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of Superintendence or in the exercise or criminal Jurisdiction)(or in the exercise of Jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made In the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matter enumerated in the State List or the concurrent List In the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act) of one Judge.).
-
The brief facts end the circumstances under which this special appeal has been filed are that the Appellant filed an application for allotment of the accommodation in dispute in his favour under Section 16 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Offices called for a report from the Rent Control Inspector. The Rent Control inspector submitted a report stating therein that the accommodation in question could not be treated as vacant as the Appellant was himself occupying the said accommodation. He recommended that the parties may be summoned. One Kanhaiyalal Kesari also filed an application for allotment. Subsequently, the Appellant filed an application that he was in possession of the accommodation since the year 1968 and his possession may be regularised under Section 14 of the Act. The landlord filed an objection stating that the possession of the Appellant was unauthorised and be was not in occupation with his consent and he is not entitled to any regularisation of his possession under Section 14 of the Act. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer held that the possession of the Appellant was unauthorised and declared the premises in question as vacant on 11-3-1987. After the passing of this order the landlord moved an application seeking release of the premises in dispute. The application of the landlord for release was allowed and the applications of the applicant and that of Kanhaiyalal for allotment were rejected The Appellant filed writ petition against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer which was dismissed by the learned Judge of this Court by order dated October 28, 1992. This special appeal has been filed against the said order.
-
The Rent Control Officer exercised the delegated power of the District Magistrate under the Act There is no dispute that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has power to release an accommodation in favour of the landlord under Section 16 of the Act or allot such...
To continue reading
Request your trial