# BABU LAL v. SHEONATH DAS ·

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 241
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-12-13
- **Bench:** R. S. BACHAWAT ANv J. M. SHELAT
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/babu-lal-v-sheonath-das-3998
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss. 7(2),
7A(l) & (2)~Land/ord M:Uring decree against tenant-Collector a1Jo1ting accommOdation to another .person-Landlord entering into arrangement with tenant to continue his tenancy-Powers of Collector to make
new allotment and to evict, tenant.
The appellant was a tenant of respondents 2 & 3 in Varanasi. The
said landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the
accommodation.
Exercising the Collector's powers under s. 7(2) of the
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act 1947, the A!sistant
Rent Control and Eviction, Officer passed an order directing the landlords
to let the accommodation to respondent No. 1.
Hoy,.·ev~r, ~ul~s<:.quEnt ta
this order, the landlords allowed the appellant to continue as tenant on
enhanced rent. The Assistant Rent Cortrol & Eviction Officer thereupon
started proceedings under s. 7A( 1) of the Act, He passed an order under
s. 7A(2) directing the appellant to vacate the accommodation.
The
appellant filed a writ petition but failing to get relief from the High
Court, he filed ·a suit asking for a· declaration that the orders p -;sc;d i>y
the Assistant Rent Cantrol & Eviction Officer were without jurisdiction.
The trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court decreed it, but
on second appeal the High Court restored the decree of the trial court
dismissing the suit.
The appellant was granted special le.ave to appeal to
this Court.
It was urged on behalf of the appellant ( i) that the District Magistrate had no powers to pass the order of allotment under •. 7{2) till the
accommodation had fallen vacant, (ii) that even if he had the power the
order would take effect. only when the accommodation fell vaca.;1t and (iii)
that the proceedings under s. 7 A were without jurisdiction as there was
no contravention of the order under s. 7(2).
HEID : (i) The District Magistrate can pass an order under s. 7(2)
not only when the accommodation is or bas fallen vacant but also when
it is about to fall vacant.
In the present . case both the landlord and
the tenant had made statements that the accommodation was about to
fall vacant.
On the materials on the record there could be no doubt
that the accommodation was about to fall vacant when the District
Magistrate passed the order under s. 7(2). [243 D-E]
(ii) The order under s. 7(2)
directed the
iandiords ro let
the
accobunodation to the allottee.
The order took effect immediatefy
It
.could not be ssid that the order would take effect only when the aceommodation actually fell vacant. [244 A-Bl
(Iii) After the allotment was passed. the landlords agreed to accept
the appellant as •. tenant at enhanced rent.
This lotting and the contiH
nuance of occupation by. the appellant under it were in direct breach pf
the all.oh!'ent or~er. There was thus a contravention pf the order and
the Distnct ~•Aistrate had therefore jurisdiction to initiate proceedings
under sub-sectioni ( 1) ·of s. 7 A and to pass the orders under sub-section•
I
(2) & (3) of s. 7A. (244 D-Fl
I MlSup. CI/67-2
I
242
SUPJtBME COURT
REPOllTS
[1967] 2 S.C.ll.
Ov11. ArPFLl.A TF Jt:Rlsnrcr10:-; : Civil Appeal No. 2271 of
A
1966.
Appeal hy >pccial leave from the judgment and decree dated the
February 12. 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 2862 of 1963.
B. C. Misra. ,\1. V. Goswami, and B. R. G. K. Aclwr, for the
B
appellant.
J. P. Goyal and H. K. Puri, for the respondent No. I.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
BABU LAL
v.
SHEONATH DAS
· December 13, 1966
[R. S. BACHAWAT ANv J. M. SHELAT, JJ.]
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, ss. 7(2),
7A(l) & (2)~Land/ord M:Uring decree against tenant-Collector a1Jo1ting accommOdation to another .person-Landlord entering into arrangement with tenant to continue his tenancy-Powers of Collector to make
new allotment and to evict, tenant.
The appellant was a tenant of respondents 2 & 3 in Varanasi. The
said landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the
accommodation.
Exercising the Collector's powers under s. 7(2) of the
U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act 1947, the A!sistant
Rent Control and Eviction, Officer passed an order directing the landlords
to let the accommodation to respondent No. 1.
Hoy,.·ev~r, ~ul~s<:.quEnt ta
this order, the landlords allowed the appellant to continue as tenant on
enhanced rent. The Assistant Rent Cortrol & Eviction Officer thereupon
started proceedings under s. 7A( 1) of the Act, He passed an order under
s. 7A(2) directing the appellant to vacate the accommodation.
The
appellant filed a writ petition but failing to get relief from the High
Court, he filed ·a suit asking for a· declaration that the orders p -;sc;d i>y
the Assistant Rent Cantrol & Eviction Officer were without jurisdiction.
The trial court dismissed the suit, the appellate court decreed it, but
on second appeal the High Court restored the decree of the trial court
dismissing the suit.
The appellant was granted special le.ave to appeal to
this Court.
It was urged on behalf of the appellant ( i) that the District Magistrate had no powers to pass the order of allotment under •. 7{2) till the
accommodation had fallen vacant, (ii) that even if he had the power the
order would take effect. only when the accommodation fell vaca.;1t and (iii)
that the proceedings under s. 7 A were without jurisdiction as there was
no contravention of the order under s. 7(2).
HEID : (i) The District Magistrate can pass an order under s. 7(2)
not only when the accommodation is or bas fallen vacant but also when
it is about to fall vacant.
In the present . case both the landlord and
the tenant had made statements that the accommodation was about to
fall vacant.
On the materials on the record there could be no doubt
that the accommodation was about to fall vacant when the District
Magistrate passed the order under s. 7(2). [243 D-E]
(ii) The order under s. 7(2)
directed the
iandiords ro let
the
accobunodation to the allottee.
The order took effect immediatefy
It
.could not be ssid that the order would take effect only when the aceommodation actually fell vacant. [244 A-Bl
(Iii) After the allotment was passed. the landlords agreed to accept
the appellant as •. tenant at enhanced rent.
This lotting and the contiH
nuance of occupation by. the appellant under it were in direct breach pf
the all.oh!'ent or~er. There was thus a contravention pf the order and
the Distnct ~•Aistrate had therefore jurisdiction to initiate proceedings
under sub-sectioni ( 1) ·of s. 7 A and to pass the orders under sub-section•
I
(2) & (3) of s. 7A. (244 D-Fl
I MlSup. CI/67-2
I
242
SUPJtBME COURT
REPOllTS
[1967] 2 S.C.ll.
Ov11. ArPFLl.A TF Jt:Rlsnrcr10:-; : Civil Appeal No. 2271 of
A
1966.
Appeal hy >pccial leave from the judgment and decree dated the
February 12. 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 2862 of 1963.
B. C. Misra. ,\1. V. Goswami, and B. R. G. K. Aclwr, for the
B
appellant.
J. P. Goyal and H. K. Puri, for the respondent No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. The appellant is the tenant and respondents
Nos. 2 and 3 are the landlords of a non-residential accommodation
in a part of a building in Mohalla Bulanala in the city of Varanasi.
Respondent No. I as the allottee of the accommodation. Respondent No. 5 is the Assistant Rent Control and Eviction Officer,
Varanasi, authorised by the District Magistrate to perform his
functions under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On February
I I, 1956 the landlords obtained a decree for ejectment of the tenant
from the accommodation. As the tenant was about to vacate the
accommodation, on February 20, 1957, respondent No. 5 passed
order under s. 7(2) of the Act directing the landlords to '!t
the accommodation to respondent No. I. On February 22, 1957,
the landlords and the tenant agreed that the teriant would continue
to occupy the accommodation at an enhanced rent and· would be
liable to eviction in execution of the decree for ejectment in the
event of his failing to pay the outstanding arrears of rent in certain
stated instalments. As the tenant failed to pay the agreed instalments of rent, on May 21, 1957, the landlords in execution of the
decree for ejectment obtained an order from the executing court
for the issue of a warrant for delivery of possession. In the meantime on February 23, 1957, proceedings were started against the
appellant under s. 7 A( I) of the Act.
By an order dated March
23, 1957, under s. 7A(2) respondent No. 5 directed the tenant to
vacate the accommodation by March 24, 1957.
By another order
dated Drcember 2, 1957, under s. 7A(3) respondent No. 5 directed
S.O, P.S. Chowk to evict the tenant and put the allottee in occupation of the accommodation. The tenant filed a writ petition challenging the orders of respondent No. 5. The writ petition was
dismissed and the tenant was relegated to a suit. A special appeal
from this order filed by the tenant was also dismissed. On September 9, 1958, the tenant filed the present suit asking for a declaration
that the orders passed by respondent No. 5 were without jurisdiction and for consequential reliefs. The trial court dismissed the
suit. The appellate court reversed this decree and decreed the
suit. On second appeal, the High Court restored the decree of the
c
D
E
F
G
H
BABU LAL v. SHEONATH DAS (Bachawat, J.)
243
A
trial court and dismissed the suit. T!1e tenant has now filed this
appeal by special leave.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
In this appeal the tenant challenges the orders passed by respondent No. 5 under sub-s. (2) of 7 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of
s. 7 A of the Act.
Section 7(2) is in these terms :-
"7. (l) (a)
(b)
(c) ................... .
(2) The District Magistrate may by general or
special order require a landlord to let or not to let
to any person any accommodation which is or
has· fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant."
Under s. 7(2), the District Magistrate can pass an order in
respect of an accommodation which is or has fallen vacant or is
about to fall vacant. The accommodation must either be vacant
or about to fall vacant before he can pass the order under s. 7(2).
Jf the <\Ccommodation is neither vacant nor about to fall vacant,
when the order under s. 7(2) is passed, the order is void and is
without jurisdiction.
Counsel for the tenant submitted that the District Magistrate
has no power to pass an order of allotment under s. 7(2) unless the
accommodation is or has fallen vacant. This submission is based on
a misconception. The District Magistrate can pass an order under
s. 7(2) not only when the accommodation is or has fallen vacant but"'
also when it is about to fall vacant. On the materials ori the record
there can be no doubt that the accommodation was about to fall
vacant when respondent No. 5 passed the order under s. 7(2).
Before passing the order, he issued notices to the landlords and the
tenant. On January 5, 1957, the landlords stated before him in
writin; that the accommodation was about to be vacated by the
tenant. On January 22, 1957, the tenant stated before him in writing that he was going to leave the accommodation in a month's
time. On February 12, 1957, the tenant again made a statement
before him that he warted to vacate the shop as the decree for ejectment had been passed against him. The declared intention of
the tenant that he was about to vacate the accommodation coupled
with the decree for ejectment show that on February 20, 1957, the
accommodation was on the point of becoming vacant or was about
to fall vacant. As a matter of fact in the courts below the appellant did not contend that on February 20, 1957 the accommodation
was not about to fall vacant.
His contention was that as the accommodation had not actually fallen vacant, respondent No. 5 had no
power to pass the order under s. 7(2).
244
SUPREME COUil T llEPOll TS
(1967] 2 S.C.ll.
Counsel next submitted that even though respondent No. 5
might have power to pass an order under s. 7(2) when the accommodation was about to fall vacant, the order could take effect only
when the accommodation fell vacant. We cannot acce.,t this contention. The order dated February 20, 1957 directed the landlords
to Jet the accommodation to the allottee. Respondent No. 5 had
power to pass this order. The order took effect immediately.
Counsel for the tenant submitted that the proceedings under
s. 7 A were without jurisdiction. Now the District Magistrate can
take action under s. 7 A "where an order requiring any accommodation to be let or not to be let has been duly passed under subsection (2) of section 7 and the District Magistrate believes or has
reason to believe that any person has in contravention of the said
order, occupied the accommodation or any part thereof". Counsel
submitted that as the tenant was in occupation of the accommodation before the passing of the order under s. 7(2), he cannot be said
to have occupied the accommodation in contravention of the order.
This contention is supported by the decision in Ram Lal v. Shiv
Mani Singh and others('), but we cannot agree with the broad
statement in this case that the continuance after the allotment
order of an occupation previous to the order cannot be an occupation in contravention of the order. It is a question of fact in each
case whether a person in occupation of the accommodation since
before the allotment order can be said to have occupied the accommodation in contravention of the order, see A. K. Khandelwal v.
Moti Lal Chawla and others.(2) In the instant case after the allotment order was passed, the landlords agreed to accept the appellant
as a tenant at enhanced rent. This letting and the continuance of
occupation by the appellant under it were in direct breach of the
allotlllent order. In the circumstances, the appellant can well be
said to have oc.:upied the accommodation in contravention of tl:!e
order. The respondent No. 5 had, therefore, jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under sub-section (I) of s. 7 A and to pass the
orders under sub-sections (2) and (3) of s. 7 A. The propriety of
this order cannot be questioned in this suit.
The appeal is dismissed. Ther.:: will be no order as to costs.
A
B
c
D
F
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
G
(I) (1962] A.L.J. 260.
(2) (1%4] A.L.J. 20.