RAM DULAREY GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1980-10-69
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 08,1980

RAM DULAREY GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Respondent No. 2 was tenant of a portion of the petitioner's house. On 23.9.1976 he made an application to the District Magistrate alleging that the petitioner had started demolition of the premises under the respondent's tenancy. He prayed for an order to stop demolition and for penal action against the petitioner under Section 31(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. On the same day, the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) directed the Station Officer, Police Station Chowk, Lucknow to take steps to stop the demolition work and to report. This order is Annexure 6. The police report dated 30th September, 1976 is Annexure 7. It is stated therein that demolition work had already been completed and there remained nothing which could be stopped. The petitioner's reply to the respondent's application is Annexure 8 which is dated 27th September, 1976. In this reply it was stated that the petitioner had started demolition only after the respondent had consented to it and nothing had been done illegally. The petitioner relied, inter alia, on an application given by the respondent to the Lucknow. Electric Supply Undertaking on 21st June, 1976, a copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. By this application the respondent had requested the electricity authorities to shift his electric meter temporarily to another shop because the shop in question was to be reconstructed and the matter was thereafter to be again shifted to the shop. The reference to reconstruction of the shop was said to support the petitioner. On 30th October, 1976, the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies) submitted a report to the District Magistrate. In this report, which is Annexure 10, it was mentioned that there was no documentary proof of the alleged consent of the tenant to demolition and, in any case, the petitioner had not obtained any release order and, as such, had ed improperly. It was, however, suggested that the petitioner might give to the respondent one shop in the newly constructed building and if the petitioner agreed to it, then the matter may be dropped, but if the petitioner did not agree, then he should be prosecuted under Section 31(2) of the Act. The District Magistrate endorsed his approval to this note, vide Annexure 10. Thereafter, the petitioner did not intimate to the Tribunal (which had by that time been constituted under Section 2B of the Act to exercise the powers of District Magistrate under the Act) his willingness to give accommodation to the respondent in the proposed building. On 1st march 1977, this Tribunal directed the petitioner to make available to the respondent one shop by 30th June, 1977. This order is Annexure 13. The petitioner applied for review vide Annexure 14, but his request was rejected by order dated 31st May, 1977, Annexure 15. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has asked that the orders Annexure 6, 13 and 15 may be quashed.
(2.)We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.)There is dispute between the parties as to whether the demolition work was carried out by the petitioner with the consent of the respondent and further as to whether the consent was given by the respondent on the petitioner's assurance that one shop in the building proposed to be newly constructed would be given to the respondent on rent. It is not necessary for us to enter into this controversy. For, in any view of the matter, the said Act would not apply to any construction so newly made. Section 24 is not applicable because the new construction has not been made after obtaining an order for demolition and release under Section 21, but under an alleged private arrangement. Thus, the authorities had no power whatsoever to allot the newly constructed building to the respondent. Indeed, the allotment is quite vague inasmuch as it does not specify which portion of the new building was allotted. Actually the purported allotment was made in anticipation of the construction being made. Such an order, apart from being unauthorised by any provision of the Act, is also thus clearly unenforceable.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.