http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: RAMESH CHANDRA MISRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHENDRA TRIPATHI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1976

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BHAGWATI, P.N.

CITATION:  1977 AIR  445            1977 SCR  (2) 128  1977 SCC  (1)  25

ACT:             Interpretation of statutes--If can  be construed   keep-         ing  object  in  view whether object to be gathered from the         language  used--U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of  letting,         rent and eviction) Act 1972--Sections 3(c), 11, 12, 13,  16,         18--Rules   10   &   11--Application   for   allotment    of         premises--Whether  an authorised occupant  can  apply--First         come first served basis.

HEADNOTE:             In September, 1973, the appellant applied under  section         16(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting,         rent and eviction) Act, 1972 for the allotment of a part  of         a  house, which was actually occupied by him.  According  to         the  appellant,  he  was included as a tenant  by  a  person         representing  himself to be the owner but who in fact was  a         tenant.   In November, 1973, the first respondent  also  ap-         plied for allotment of the said premises.  The Area  Ration-         ing  Officer allotted the premises to the first  respondent.         The  District Judge allowed the appeal filed by  the  appel-         lant,  set  aside the order of allotment in  favour  of  the         first  respondent  and remanded the case  to  the  Rationing         Officer  to  be decided afresh in  accordance  with  law.The         District Judge pointed out that the Area. Rationing  Officer         had ignored altogether rule 11 of the Rules framed under the         Act  which  required  that in the matter  of  allotment  the         principle ’first come first served’ should be followed.  The         District  Judge also negatived the contention of  the  first         respondent  that the appellant’s application was  not  main-         tainable  since he was an unauthorised occupant.  The  Court         held  that there was no provision in the Act which  bars  an         unauthorised  occupant from applying for an allotment. In  a         wit  petition filed by the first respondent the  High  Court         quashed  the  order of the District Judge and  restored  the         order made by the Area Rationing Officer.             Section 11 of the Act provides that no person shall  let         any  building  except  in pursuance of  an  allotment  order         issued under section 16.  Section 13 provides that no person         shall  occupy a building  or part thereof which a   landlord         or  tenant  has ceased to occupy except under  an  order  of         allotment  made  under  section 16.  Under  section  16  the         District Magistrate is empowered to make an order  requiring

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       the  landlord  to let any building which is  or  has  fallen         vacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building         to  any person specified in the order.  An order under  sec-         tion  16  is appealable under section 18.   In  exercise  of         powers  conferred by section 41 of the Act, the  rules  have         been framed by the State Government.  Rule 10 prescribes the         procedure  for allotment.  It provides that the  application         should  be  entered in the register after  classifying  them         according to the priority of the categories. Rule 10 further         provides  that a building shall not.be allotted to a  person         who  is  deemed to have ceased to occupy a  building  for  a         period of two years from the date of such deemed  cessation.         Rule  11 fixes order of priorities in allotment of  residen-         tial buildings and   it further provides that in each of the         categories the principle ’first come first served’ shall  be         followed.         Al1owing the appeal,             HELD:  (1) The High Court in its judgment has  not  men-         tioned any provision in the Act which dissentitles  unautho-         rised occupants from applying for allotment.  Rules 10(5)  &         (6)  provide that certain persons should not  ordinarily  be         allotted  a  promises; the appellant does  not  fall  within         those categories. [131D-E]             2.  The High Court infers the disability of an  unautho-         rised  occupant  from  applying for an  allotment  from  the         object of the Act.  The object of the Act has to be gathered         from  its  provisions.  There is nothing in  the  Act  which         disentitles  an unauthorised occupant from applying  for  an         allotment.      [131H, 132A]          129

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 127 of 1976.             (Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  the  20.8.1975 of the Allahabad High  Court  (Lucknow         Bench) at Lucknow in Civil Writ Petition No. 1062 of 2974).         G.N. Dikshit and S.K. Bisaria, for the Appellant.          D. Goburdhan, for the Respondent.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by         GUPTA,  J.--This  appeal by special leave arises  out  of  a         proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings  (Regula-         tion  of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (referred  to         hereinafter as the Act).   On September 11, 1973 the  appel-         lant applied under section 16(1)(a) for allotment of a  part         of  house No. 98,  Lokmanganj,  Lucknow.  He was in fact  in         occupation of this portion of the building when he made  the         application: according to the appellant he had been inducted         as  a tenant by a person representing that he was the  owner         of  the  house,though really he was himself a  tenant.    On         November  24,  1973 the first respondent  also  applied  for         alloting the house to him. Subsequently there were two  more         applicants  for the house.The Area Rationing  Officer  (Rent         Control) by his order dated June 4, 1974 allotted the accom-         modation  to the  first respondent.  The appellant before us         preferred an appeal to the District Judge, Lucknow,  who  on         August  7, 1974 allowed the appeal, set aside the  order  of         allotment made in favour of the first respondent and remand-         ed the case to the Area Rationing Officer (Rent Control)  to         be decided  afresh  in accordance with law.             The  District Judge pointed out that the Area  Rationing         Officer (Rent Control) had ignored altogether rule 11 of the         Rules framed under the Act which required that in the matter         of allotment the principle "first come first served"  should

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       be  followed.   The District Judge  overruled  a  contention         raised on behalf of the  first  respondent  that  the appel-         lant’s application for allotment was not maintainable as  he         was  an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of the  Act         of the building in question.   The appellate authority  held         that  there was no provision in the Act which bars an  unau-         thorised occupant from applying for an allotment.  On a writ         petition  filed  by the  first  respondent,   the  Allahabad         High  Court  quashed  the order of the  District  Judge  and         restored the order made by the area Rationing Officer  (Rent         Control)  alloting the house to the first respondent on  the         view that rule 11 requiring "first come first served"  prin-         ciple to be followed was applicable only to persons similar-         ly  situated,   and an unauthorised  occupant could  not  be         "placed  in the same situation as others who  were  in  need         of accommodation".  According to the High Court the  princi-         ple "first come first served" was" not intend to be  applied         mechanically  and not in such a manner as to  frustrate  the         object of the Act". The correctness of the view taken by the         High Court is in challenge before  us.             It is necessary to refer briefly to the relevant  provi-         sions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.  The  Act,         as  its long title shows, is a statute "to provide,  in  the         interest of the general public, for the         10--1458SCI/76         130         regulation  of  letting  and rent of, and  the  eviction  of         tenants from, certain classes of buildings situated in urban         areas, and for matters connected therewith".  Chapter III of         the  Act  which contains provisions regulating  letting  in-         cludes section 11 to section 19.  Section 11 lays down  that         no. person shall let any building except in pursuance of  an         allotment  order  issued   under section  16.   Section   12         states inter alia  that a landlord or a tenant of a building         shall  be deemed to have ceased. to occupy the  building  or         part  thereof  if he has allowed it to be  occupied  by  any         person  who. is not a member of his family.   The  appellant         and  the tenant of the building who inducted him  there  axe         not members of the same family.  Section 13 provides that no         person  shall  occupy  a building or part  thereof  which  a         landlord  or  tenant has ceased to occupy  except  under  an         order  of  allotment  made under section 16 and  that  if  a         person  "so purports to occupy" he shall be deemed to be  an         unauthorised occupant such building or part.  Under  section         16(1)(a) the District Magistrate may make an order requiring         the  landlord  to let any building which is  or  has  fallen         vacant or is about to fall vacant or a part of such building         to any person specified in the order.  An order made by  the         District Magistrate under this provision is called an allot-         ment  order.   ’District Magistrate’ as defined  in  section         3(c)  includes an officer authorised by the District  Magis-         trate  to exercise all or any of his powers under  the  Act.         An  order under section 16 is appealable under  section  18.         Section 41 authorises the State Government to make rules  to         carry  out  the purposes of the Act.  Rule 10 of  the  Rules         framed under the Act prescribes the procedure for allotment.         The  District Magistrate is required to maintain a  register         of  applications for allotment of buildings.   The  applica-         tions are to be classified according to the priority catego-         ries specified in rule 11 and they must be registered in the         order  they are received.  The register is  prepared  afresh         for  every calendar  year and  applicants who are unable  to         secure  allotment by the end of an year and  whose  applica-         tions were not rejected as not maintainable are entitled  to         apply  by  the 15th of January of the  succeeding  year  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       renewal of their applications and they retain their original         relative priority.  Sub-rule (5) of rule 10 provides that no         building shall ordinarily be. allotted to the persons or for         the  purposes specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c)  of  the         sub-rule.   Sub-rule (6) lays down inter alia that a  person         who is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building within the         meaning  of section 12(1)(b) shall not be allotted  that  or         any  other residential building for a  period of  two  years         from  the   date of such deemed cessation.   Rule  11  which         fixes  the order of priorities in allotment  of  residential         buildings states in sub-rule (1) that:                             "In  making allotment of  a  residential                       building,  .the following order of  priorities                       shall be observed:                           Firstly, for public purposes;                           Secondly,   for  accommodating  a   person                       against  whom  an order has  been  passed  for                       eviction under Section 21, not being a  tenant                       referred  to  in  Explanation (1)  to  Section                       21(1),  or a decree has been passed in a  suit                       filed  with  the permission  of  the  District                       Magistrate under section 3 of the old Act  (or                       such  suit or application is pending) and  who                       or                       131                       members of whose family do not own or hold  as                       tenants any other residential building in  the                       same   city,   municipality,  town  ’area   or                       notified area;                       Thirdly, for accommodating others;                       and in each of the above categories subject to                       the provisions of sub-rule (2), the  principle                       "first   come,   first   served"   shall    be                       followed."            As  intending allottees the appellant and the  first  re-         spondent both come within the third category.            If  the  principle  ’first come first served’  is  to  be         followed in choosing between them, the appellant’s  applica-         tion  for allotment  being earlier in point of  time  should         have preference unless there is any valid ground for reject-         ing  his claim.  We are not concerned in this  appeal  about         the  existence  of any such ground; the District  Judge  had         remitted  the case to the Area Rationing Officer (Rent  Con-         trol) for a fresh decision in accordance with law  following         the  ’first  come first served’ principle.  The  High  Court         thought that the appellant being in unauthorised  occupation         of  the building within the meaning  of section 13  was  not         entitled to apply for allotment of the premises to him.   It         does not however appear from the Judgment of the High  Court         that  there  is any provision in the Act  which  disentitles         such  unauthorised  occupants from applying  for  allotment.         The appellant is not one of the persons to whom no  building         is ordinarily to  be allotted under sub-rules (5) and (6) of         rule 10.  The High Court refers to sub-rules (4) and (5)  of         rule 11 to show that the principle first come first  served’         does  not  apply in all circumstances.  Sub-rule  (4)  gives         overriding  powers  to the District Magistrate  to  make  an         allotment out of turn in  favour of a person who in  occupy-         ing any accommodation proposed to be requisitioned under the         Uttar Pradesh Temporary Accommodation  Requisition Act, 1947         and  to  whom  alternative accommodation is required  to  be         provided  under that Act.  Sub-rule (5) which  is  expressly         made  subject to the other sub-rules of rule 11 states  that         it  should  be ensured that no person shall  be  allotted  a         building which carries so little rent that he is able to get

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       a  residence on payment of rent which is less than  ten  per         cent  of his salary or other income, after taking into  con-         sideration the house rent allowance allowed by his employer.         Both  these sub-rules are quite irrelevant for  the  present         purpose.   Therefore,  assuming that  sub-rules (4) and  (5)         are  exceptions to the ’first come first served’  principle,         the  appellant’s application for allotment cannot be  thrown         out unless there was some provision prohibiting unauthorised         occupants  from  applying  for allotment.   The  High  Court         thinks  that an unauthorised occupant cannot be  "placed  in         the same situations as others who are in need of  accommoda-         tion" and that the  principle ’first come first served’ "has         to  be applied amongst person of the same category  who  are         similarly  situated".  The High Court has not mentioned  any         provision  of the Act to justify the view it has taken,  nor         any  such provision has been referred to by counsel for  the         first  respondent  which disables an  unauthorised  occupant         from  applying for an allotment.  The disability,  the  High         Court infers from the object of the Act.  The         132         object of the Act has to be gathered from its provisions and         we  have not found anything in the Act which disentitles  an         unauthorised  occupant  to  ask for an  allotment.   In  our         opinion the High Court was in error in quashing the order of         the District Judge.  The appeal is accordingly allowed.  The         judgment  of  the High Court is set aside and  that  of  the         District Judge dated August 7, 1974 is restored. There  will         be no order as to costs.         P.H.P.    Appeal allowed.         133