Rajendra Kumar Verma (d) Th. Lrs. v. Additional District Magistrate (civil Supplies) & Ors.

KURIAN, J. 1. Whether a Review under Section 16(5)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, R ent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short, “the Act”) in respect of an order regarding vacancy is maintainable, is the only question of la w arising for consideration in this case. Section 16(5)(a) reads as under :- “Where the landlord or any other person claiming to be a lawful occupant of the building or any part thereof compris ed in the allotment or release order satisfies the Dis trict Magistrate that such order was not made in accordance with clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, of sub-s ection (1), the District Magistrate may review the order: Provided that no application under this clause shal l be entertained later than seven days after the eviction of such person.” RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH. LRS. v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLIES) 2. Sh. S. R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing fo r the appellants, submits 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). Section 16 reads as follows :- “Allotment and release of vacant building – (1) Subjec t to the provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate may by order – (a) require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building but not appurtenant land alone, to any per son specified in the order (to be called an allotment order); or (b) release the whole or any part of such building, or any land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord (to be called a release order): [Provided that in the case of a vacancy referred to in sub- section(4) of Section 12, the District Magistrate sha ll give an opportunity to the landlord or the tenant, as th e case may be, of showing that the said section is not attracted to his case before making an order under clause (a)]” 3. Sh. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the party- respondents, points out that the District Magistrate, if pass es a wrong order regarding a vacancy, the same is always open to r eview, being only statutory remedy. 4. The whole purpose of Section 16(1) of the Act, 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 pre-condition for an order under Section 16(1)(a) or (b). If we adopt the technical argument advanced by Sh.S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel, the order attains finality and there is no provision under the Act to challenge the same. In our view, 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, 547 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. 5. Therefore, we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court that the District Magistrate was justified in invoking its review jurisdiction under Sub-Section 5(a) of Section 16 of the Act. 6. Having said that, we find that there are certain other facts also which should be taken note of. There is a civil suit pending between the parties, being Suit No. 375 of 1981 before the II Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi. That pertains to the cancellation of a sale deed said to have been executed by the son of Respondent No. 2 in favour of the appellants. The premises now occupied by the appellants is the same premises which is the subject matter of the suit. 7. Though Sh. S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel, submits that this Court, having found that review jurisdiction is properly exercised, the matter should be left to the authority concerned to consider whether the release would be granted or not since several factors are taken note of while granting the order, having regard to the detailed discussion made by the High Court in the impugned order, having regard to the fact that the landlord has been pursuing the litigation for release since 1978, and the further fact that he is the beneficiary in the review , we are of the view that it is just, fair, reasonable and proper that the proceedings under the Act be given a quietus. Ordered accordingly. 8. However, we make it clear that the rights of the parties inter se will be decided in Suit No. 375 of 1981. Accordingly, this appeal i s disposed of with a direction to the trial court concerned to dispos e of Suit No. 375 of 1981 expeditiously and in any case, within a period of six months from today. We make it clear that the suit will be tried on its own merits. The submission that the parties will cooperate for the expeditious disposal of the case is recorded. 9. We also make it clear that the status quo with r egard to possession shall continue till the suit is finally disposed of by the trial court. No costs. Ankit Gyan Appea l disposed of. RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA (D) TH. LRS. v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (CIVIL SUPPLIES) [KURIAN, J.]