ASHOK KAPIL Vs. SANA ULLAH DEAD
LAWS(SC)-1996-9-85
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
September 25,1996
Ashok Kapil
Appellant
VERSUS
Sana Ullah Dead
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
VIKASH ADHIKARI VS. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-11-66] [REFERRED TO]A SATYANARAYAN SHAH VS. M YADGIRI [LAWS(SC)-2002-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
INDUS HOSPITAL VS. HPSEB [LAWS(HPH)-2005-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. THR ADDL. CHIEF SECY. SECRETARIAT ADMIN. DEPT. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-143] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER KUMAR VS. MOHD ALLAUDDIN [LAWS(APH)-2005-11-94] [REFERRED TO]
MALA RANA PATRA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2004-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
EUREKA FORBES LIMITED VS. ALLAHABAD BANK [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2024-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF OFFICER NADIAD NAGARPALIKA VS. RAMESHBHAI JASHBHAI HARIJAN [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER VS. RAGHUVEERSINH DANUBHAI ZALA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT VS. MAHENDRA JASHVANTRAI DAVE [LAWS(GJH)-2016-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
MULLU VENKATRAMAN REDDY AND OTHER VS. GANDHURI GOVINDA REDDYAND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2013-1-28] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT DROPADI DEVI SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE VS. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-2002-5-127] [REFERRED TO]
MANSUKHLAL PITALIA VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INDOME TAX [LAWS(MPH)-2019-4-242] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. P.B.IBRAHIM [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
NIMMI JOHN CHACKOLA VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-2016-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
UDAY KRISHNA VS. DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY [LAWS(APH)-2018-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
CEAT LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2009-9-258] [REFERRED]
SATYA PRAKASH & ORS VS. DISTT JUDGE SULTANPUR & ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM SUSHIL GARG VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2003-10-156] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. PRESIDENT / MANAGING TRUSTEE [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTIYA SEVA SAMAJ TRUST TR. PRES VS. YOGESHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
NASEEM HAFEEZ VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-1-59] [RELIED ON]
AJAY GUPTA VS. M/S. GREENWAYS [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
BHASWATI PAL VS. COUNCIL FOR INDIAN SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION [LAWS(CAL)-2002-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
NAR BAHADUR KHATIWADA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2013-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BIDI SUPPLY CO. VS. R.P.F. COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ORI)-2016-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
TEKCHAND KHANCHANDANI VS. TRIBHUVANDAS DHORIA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD. VS. UDAY SHANKAR PAUL [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-6-51] [REFERRED TO]
TCV ENGINEERING LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2018-11-187] [REFERRED TO]
RANI PAUL VS. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
PURNA CHANDRA BEHERA VS. DIBAKAR BEHERA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
DEBEN SETHI S/O LATE BALUNKI SETHI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2011-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
KALABEN SADASHIVBHAI PATEL VS. R.G. PATEL VIDYALAYA [LAWS(GJH)-2019-10-286] [REFERRED TO]
ELCEE PLASTIC INDUSTRIES VS. HARKISHAN DASS (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-167] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK RAJ BHALLA VS. ULHAS NARAYAN SANVORDEKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN MEDICAL INSTITUTE SOCIETY LALPUR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESHBHAI AMBALAL PATEL VS. PRESIDENT / MANAGING TRUSTEE [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHAPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. GIRISHBHAI JASMATBHAI MANAVADRIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-180] [REFERRED TO]
S P JAUHARI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-11-209] [REFERRED TO]
KOMATI REDDY VENKAT REDDY AND ANOTHER VS. V. NIRANJAN RAO, SECRETARY TO GOVT. AFFAIRS, STATE OF TELANGANA, LAW AND LEGISLATURE DEPT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
INDUS HOSPITAL VS. HPSEB [LAWS(HPCDRC)-2005-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
KOKILABEN N TRIVEDI VS. SHRIMATI PRABHUDAS CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(GJH)-2018-12-111] [REFERRED TO]
PEER MOHAMMAD VS. DISTRICT JUDGE JALAUN [LAWS(ALL)-2000-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWARAM MINERALS VS. ANSH CONSTRUCTIONS [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-26] [REFERRED TO]
P S METAL AND TUBES P LTD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
JETPUR NAVAGADH MUNICIPALITY, THRO CHIEF OFFICER BHARATKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA VYAS VS. KISHORBHAI KADVABHAI KONDOLIA THRO SAURASHTRA EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL CONSORTIUM OFENGINEERS (P) LTD. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-139] [REFERRED TO]
K A GRACE VS. M S LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU [LAWS(KAR)-2000-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL VS. IIIRD ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2003-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHATURVEDI VS. IVTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA [LAWS(ALL)-2002-1-180] [REFERRED TO]
KAPILBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL VS. ARUNABEN MOHANLAL NAIK [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-250] [REFERRED TO]
SHETH SHRI T M PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST VS. SNEHLATABEN B GANDHI [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-247] [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-215] [REFERRED TO]
B M MALANI VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(SC)-2008-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
RANA MARBLE AND MINES, BHAKHARO KI DHANI, MAKRANA, DISTRICT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
MUMTAZ YARUD DOWLA WAKF VS. BADAM BALAKRISHNA HOTEL PVT. LTD [LAWS(SC)-2023-10-62] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Thomas, J. -
(1.)The controversy between the parties in this appeal has narrowed down to a very short question. A building became roofless before "allotment order" was passed under Section 16(1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act). The question now remains in this appeal is: should the structure have necessarily been a roofed one on the date of allotment order
(2.)A summary of facts, out of which the said question has emerged, is given below : A building situated at Meerut City owned by the contesting respondents father (Sana Ullah) was let out to one Deep Chand Gupta for a period of 5 years. On the expiry of lease period i.e. 3-8-1974. Deep Chand Gupta surrendered vacant possession of the building to the landlord. On 20-8-1974, the present appellant moved an application before the District Magistrate (who is the competent authority for passing allotment order under the Act) for allotment of the said premises to him. Sana Ullah filed his objections on 3-9-1974, in which he contended, inter alia, that the structure was not a "building" inasmuch as it had no roof then. The District Magistrate found that the structure was still a building and hence appellant was entitled to its allotment. The case had thereafter passed through a chequered career. District Judge (the revisional authority under the Act) remanded the case on two occasions to the District Magistrate for arriving at certain findings on facts. Finally it was found that the building was a roofed structure when Deep Chand Gupta vacated it, but subsequently its tin roofs were dismantled by the owner of the building and that the structure remained roofless even on the date of allotment order. Nevertheless, allotment order was passed by the District Magistrate. Pursuant thereto the appellant occupied the building. In the revision learned District Judge held that District Magistrate had jurisdiction to allot such a structure to the tenant and confirmed the allotment order.
(3.)Landlord filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the aforesaid order. The High Court declined to interfere with the finding on facts that the roof of the building was removed by the appellant after Deep Chand Gupta vacated the premises but took the view that "an order of allotment under Section 16 can be made only in respect of a building and not with respect to a construction which was a building at the time when it was vacated but subsequently ceased to be so." According to the learned single Judge "as the legislature did not confer power of allotment in respect of a construction which ceased to be a building at the time of allotment, the order of allotment made in favour of respondent 4 was liable to be set aside." Writ petition was hence allowed and the allotment order was quashed. The said judgment of the Allahabad High Court is now being challenged in this appeal by special leave.
(2.)A summary of facts, out of which the said question has emerged, is given below : A building situated at Meerut City owned by the contesting respondents father (Sana Ullah) was let out to one Deep Chand Gupta for a period of 5 years. On the expiry of lease period i.e. 3-8-1974. Deep Chand Gupta surrendered vacant possession of the building to the landlord. On 20-8-1974, the present appellant moved an application before the District Magistrate (who is the competent authority for passing allotment order under the Act) for allotment of the said premises to him. Sana Ullah filed his objections on 3-9-1974, in which he contended, inter alia, that the structure was not a "building" inasmuch as it had no roof then. The District Magistrate found that the structure was still a building and hence appellant was entitled to its allotment. The case had thereafter passed through a chequered career. District Judge (the revisional authority under the Act) remanded the case on two occasions to the District Magistrate for arriving at certain findings on facts. Finally it was found that the building was a roofed structure when Deep Chand Gupta vacated it, but subsequently its tin roofs were dismantled by the owner of the building and that the structure remained roofless even on the date of allotment order. Nevertheless, allotment order was passed by the District Magistrate. Pursuant thereto the appellant occupied the building. In the revision learned District Judge held that District Magistrate had jurisdiction to allot such a structure to the tenant and confirmed the allotment order.
(3.)Landlord filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenging the aforesaid order. The High Court declined to interfere with the finding on facts that the roof of the building was removed by the appellant after Deep Chand Gupta vacated the premises but took the view that "an order of allotment under Section 16 can be made only in respect of a building and not with respect to a construction which was a building at the time when it was vacated but subsequently ceased to be so." According to the learned single Judge "as the legislature did not confer power of allotment in respect of a construction which ceased to be a building at the time of allotment, the order of allotment made in favour of respondent 4 was liable to be set aside." Writ petition was hence allowed and the allotment order was quashed. The said judgment of the Allahabad High Court is now being challenged in this appeal by special leave.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.