Anil Kalra v. J.D. Pandey and Others
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. The dispute in the present
matter pertains to a hundred year old building, which is covered
under Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short UP Act 13 of 1972"). C
Section 13 of said Act placed restriction on landlord, tenant
and also on any other person from occupying the building in
any capacity, without there being an order of release in favour
of landlord, or order of allotment in case of tenant. The building D
in question is known as 7, Dalibagh situated in Lucknow.
Originally said property was owned by a Barrister Mohammad
Wasim and on his migration to Pakistan, vested with the
Custodian of Evacuee Property, and thereafter settled in favour
of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das, a displaced person. But it E
appears that physical possession could not be delivered to
the allottee as the building was in occupation of several tenants.
It is pleaded that the appellantAnil Kalra, along with his brother,
sister and two others, has stepped into the shoes of the
landlords through Dr. Mulk Raj, Dwarika Das and Banarasi F
Das, heirs of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das by way of sale deeds
executed in the years 1982-1983. It is alleged by the appellant
that after the tenants vacated the premises, an application was
moved under Section 16( 1 )(b) of UP Act 13 of 1972 for release
of the building for demolition and reconstruction before the G
Competent Authority (authorized Additional District
Magistrate).
2. The Competent Authority called for a report from Rent
Control Inspector, who inspected the spot and reported on H
A 14.11.1984 that the Office of Cane Commissioner (tenant on
the part of the building) was in the midst of vacating the same.
He further reported that as per information received,
Respondent No. 2 Mrigendra Pandey and Respondent No. 3
Nripendra Pandey (both sons of Dr. J.D. Pandey), under the
B banner of M/s. Swargiya Sanjay Gandhi Sahkari Avas Samiti
Ltd,, after breaking open the locks, had unauthorizedly
occupied the building. It was further reported by the Rent
Control Inspector that the Deputy Cane Commissioner had
apprehended that the part vacated by him was also likely to
C be occupied by said society, and a First Information Report
was lodged to that effect and the District Magistrate, Lucknow,
was also informed about it. With the above information, the
Rent Control Inspector recommended that deemed vacancy
D be declared in respect of the building under Section 12(1 )(b)
of UP Act 13 of 1972, and further reported that there was a
case in favour of th8 landlord-appellant for getting released
the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction.
· (Co-landlords also joined Anil Kalra by moving separate
E application before the Competent Authority (Additional District
Magistrate, City, Lucknow). On perusal of the report of the
Rent Control Inspector and after inviting objections of
concerned parties, vacancy was declared. Thereafter, vide
· order dated 30.12.1986 (on application dated 25.2.1986), the
F Competent Authority issued the order for release of the building
under Section 16( 1 )(b) of UP Act 13 of 1972 in favour of the
appellant and co-landlords. When after issuance of Form-C
unauthorized occupants failed to vacate the building, Form-D
was issued.
3. The unauthorized occupants filed a review petition be
fore the Competent Authority (Additional District Magistrate,
City), but the same was dismissed with the finding that the
occupants were transferees from Swargiya Sanjay Gandhi
H SahkariAvas Samiti Ltd., which has no title or authority to oc-
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 405
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]
cupy the building. On this a Rent Revision was filed by re- A
spondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Dr. J.D. Pandey and his two sons
Mrigendra Pandey and Nripendra Pandey, both advocates).
The revision was decided by V Additional District Judge,
Lucknow, vide order dated 28.10.1991, in favour of said re
spondents. The appellant and co-landlords filed the Writ Peti- B
tion No. 183 (R/C) of 1991 before the High Court of Judica
ture at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the order
passed by the revisional court. After hearing the parties, the
writ petition was allowed by the High Court, vide order dated
26.5.1999 with the direction that the proceedings for delivery C
of possession to the landlord shall be re-initiated from the stage
they were stayed. The application for recall, filed by respon
dent Nos. 1 to 3, was dismissed on 4.7.2002. That round of
litigation attained finality with the dismissal of Speeial Leave D
Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of 2002 on 10.12.2002, by this
Court.
4. In the above circumstances, the appellant moved ap
plication for execution of Form-D before the Rent Control Of
ficer (Additional District Magistrate, City, East, Lucknow), and E
on 22.2,2003 said authority issued direction for execution of
Form-D. It is alleged by the appellant that to frustrate the re
lease order, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 offered to g.ive posses
sion of thirteen rooms only, and got the eviction proceedings F
stalled against unauthorized occupants. This gave cause to
the appellant to file Contempt Petition No. 265 of 2003 before
the High Court. In said proceeding also respondent Nos. 1 to
3 expressed willingness to hand over possession of thirteen
rooms only and not the building. The single Judge, hearing G
the contempt petition, directed the Rent Control Officer (Addi
tional District Magistrate, City) to comply the order of the High
Court, passed in the writ petition, against which Special Leave
Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of2002 had been dismissed. Re
spondent Nos. 1to3 filed Contempt Appeal No. 51 of 2006 H
A against the interim order dated 1.12.2006, passed by the
Judge hearing the contempt petition. The contempt appeal
was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the respon
dents filed Special Appeal (Intra CourtAppeal) No. 923 of2006
before the High Court. The appellant raised ~preliminary ob-
s jection that no Special Appeal is maintainable against the or
der of the Judge hearing the contempt petition. However, the
High Court rejected the preliminary objection. Hence, this
appeal through special leave, before us. Connected Civil
Appeal Nos. 5688-89 of 2007 are filed by respondent Nos. 1
C to 3 of the Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2007 against the judgment
and orders dated 1.12.2006 and 8.12.2006, passed by the
High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 265 of 2006
and ContemptAppeal No. 51 of2006.
D 5. Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel for the ap-
pellant, submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be al
lowed to frustrate the orders of the court passed in the first
round of litigation, which attained finality with the dismissal of
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of 2002. On the
E other hand, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the
respondents and affected parties, submitted that the landlords
are not entitled to the release of more than thirteen rooms va
cated by the Cane Commissioner.
F 6. However, the respondents failed to show that underwhat
authority the building was being occupied by respondent Nos.
1 to 3 and let out to various occupants in violation of Section
11 of the UP Act 13 of 1972. Section 11 reads as under: -
G "11. Prohibition of letting without allotment order. -
Save as hereinafter provided, no person shall let any build
ing except in pursuance of an allotment order issued un
der Section 16."
H 7. There is no allotment order issued in favour of any of
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 407
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]
the alleged occupants under Section 16 of the UP Act 13 of A
1972. It is not in dispute that the building is old and covered
under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972,
which was initially applicable to ten years old buildings as on
15.7.1972. By UP Act 28of1976 words "ten years" were sub- B
stituted by "twenty years", and by UP Act No. 11 of 1988 "twenty
years" were substituted with "forty years". As such, in any case
the building was covered under the Act and not exempted un-
der any of the clauses mentioned in Section 2 of the UP Act
No. 13of1972. C
8. The expression "District Magistrate" is defined in clause
(c) of Section 3 and includes an officer authorized by the Dis
trict Magistrate to exercise, perform and discharge all or any
of his powers, functions and duties under the Act. Clause (b) D
of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972
provides that a landlord or a tenant of a building shall be
deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof
if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a
member of his family. Section 13 of the Act provides that where E
a landlord or tenant ceases to occupy a building or part thereof,
no person shall occupy it in any capacity on his behalf of other
wise than under an order of allotment or release under Sec
tion 16. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides F
that the District Magistrate may by an order release the whole
or any part of the vacant building in favour of the landlord.
9. In Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and
others1, this Court, commenting on the conduct of the occu
pants on behalf of the firm, in a case under Haryana Urban G
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, has observed as un
der: -
1 1989 supp (2) sec 418 H
408
"5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question that
requires consideration is how will this order of eviction
passed by the High Court and confirmed by this Court by
dismissing the special leave petition on the terms men-
tioned hereinbefore on 24-8-1987 is to be enforced or
implemented? In our opinion, the said order must be imple
mented and cannot be allowed to be defeated by the du
bious methods adopted by the partners of the said firm of
Gan pat Ram Rajkumar. The whole conduct betrays a cal-
culated attempt to defeat the order of this Court and to
mislead this Court. If that is the position, in our opinion,
parties cannot be allowed to do so arid get away by mis-
leading this Court ........... "
10. In Zahurul Islam v. Abu/ Ka/am and others 2, after a
D decree of eviction passed by the Competent Court, a miscel
laneous judicial case was filed before the Second Court of the
Assistant District Judge, Alipore, West Bengal on the basis of
forged rent receipts to get the execution proceedings stalled.
Commenting on the conduct of the tenant, in said case this
E Court made following observations: -
"11. After considering the respective contentions of the
learned counsel forthe parties and the affidavits filed by
Respondent 6, Mis Hind Barrel Co. and Respondents 13
to 15, it appears to us that in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a direction from
this Court that the decree should be executed immedi
ately by the executing court and delivery of the entirety of
the suit premises covered by the decree under execution,
should be delivered to the decree-holder, the petitioner,
Zahurul Islam, by the executing court by evicting Respon
dent 1, Abu I Kalam and the other respondents including
Respondents 6 and 13 to 15 and any other person in pos-
H , 1995 Supp (1) sec 464
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 409
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]
session of any portion of the disputed premises, if neces- A
sary, with the police help ................ "
11. In Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh3, in
a case initiated under Delhi Rent Control Act challenging evic
tion decree, this Court expressed its concern in following words: B
"13. The history of this litigation shows nothing but cuss
edness and lack of bona tides on the part of the respon
dent. Apart from his tenacity and determination to prevent c
the appellants from enjoying the fruits of the decree, there
appears to be nothing commendable in the case. Even
before us the same arguments of fraud, and that the ap-
pellants were not legally owners of the suit property, were 1
pleaded. D'
xxx xxx xxx
18. Considering that the respondent has deliberately
delayed the execution, the executing court shall dispose
of the execution proceedings with utmost dispatch." E
12. In M. Meeramytheen and others v. K.
Parameswaran Pillai and others4 , considering the delay
made by tenants in vacating the premises after orders passed
under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, F
by getting inducted sub-tenant, this Court issued following di
rections: -
"14. The executing court will see that delivery of posses
sion is effected within a period of fifteen days from the G
date of filing of the execution petition or the application
aforementioned. In case for delivery of possession any
' (2005) 5 sec 527
• (201 o) 15 sec 359 H
410
armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by
the Superintendent of Police within forty-eight hours from
the date requisition is received therefor. It is also directed
that in case anybody else, other than the tenants, is found
in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the
premises in question."
13. In Atma Ram Builders Private Limitedv. A.K. Tuli
and others 5, deprecating the conduct of the tenant after the
first round of litigation was over by getting inducted another
C person, this Court expressed its anguish as under: -
"4. It is deeply regrettable that in our country often litiga
tions between the landlord and the tenant are fought up to
the stage of the Supreme Court and when the tenant loses
o in this Court then he starts a second innings through some
one claiming to be a co-tenant or as a sub-tenant or in
some other capacity and in the second round of litigation
the matter remains pending for years and the landlord can
not get possession despite the order of this Court. The
E time has come that this malpractice must now be stopped
effectively."
14. In view of law laid down by this Court, as above, and
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case,
F and conduct of respondents whereby persons in large num
ber inducted unauthorisedly by them without any allotment or
der, Civil Appeal No 3763 of 2007, filed by the landlord, de
serves to be allowed, and Civil Appeal Nos. 5688-89 of2007,
filed by the respondents (contemnors before the single Judge
G of the High Court) are liable to be dismissed. We order ac
cordingly. We further direct the Competent Authority (Addi
tional District Magistrate, City, East, Lucknow) to execute the
Form-D. However, keeping in mind that there are several oc-
H '(2011) 6 sec 385
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 411
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]
cupants (inducted unauthorisedlywithout any allotment order), A
on humanitarian ground they are allowed three months' time
from today to vacate the premises voluntarily, whereafter they
or anyone occupying in their place along with respondent Nos.
1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2007, shall be forcibly dis
possessed within 48 hours in compliance of this order, as di- B
rected above. The District Magistrate and the Senior Super
intendent of Police, Lucknow, are directed to provide every
assistance in execution of the order of release, affirmed by
tbe High Court in Writ Petition (R/C) No. 183 of 1991 on
26.5.1999. Needless to say that this Court has already dis- C
missed Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of 2002 on
10.12.2002, challenging the order passed in the writ petition
by the High Court. We also clarify that the landlords are not
allowed to let out the released building (in the existing condi- 0 tion), and they shall demolish the building for reconstruction
for which the building has been released by the authority con
cerned.
15. With the directions, as above, Civil Appeal No. 3763
of 2007 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos. 5688-89 of 2007 E
stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
NidhiJain Appeals disposed of.