Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from a rent control dispute concerning House No.61/8, Ground Floor, Green Pasture View, Landhour Bazar, Mussoorie. Rashid Ahmed was the original tenant since 1965. The respondents purchased the premises in 1998 and became landlords. On 10.6.1999, the landlords moved an application before the Rent Controller alleging that Rashid Ahmed had sublet the property, seeking declaration of vacancy under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. A Rent Control Inspector inspected the premises and reported that four separate families were residing there, including Rashid Ahmed, his son Mohd. Inam (the appellant), Shabbir Ahmed, and Ayyub. Rashid Ahmed objected, claiming all occupants were family members. During proceedings, Rashid Ahmed died on 19.1.2000, and his son Mohd. Inam was substituted as legal heir. The Rent Controller declared the premises vacant on 4.6.2003. The appellant and Shabbir Ahmed filed a writ petition (WP No.7 of 2003) before the Uttarakhand High Court, which was dismissed on 23.8.2006 as premature with liberty to challenge after the final order under Section 16. The Rent Controller then passed a final order on 31.5.2007 declaring the premises vacant. The appellant and Shabbir Ahmed filed a revision (RCR No.122 of 2007) before the District Judge, Dehradun under Section 18, which was allowed on 5.6.2008, setting aside both the vacancy order and final order. The landlords then filed a writ petition (WP No.1074 of 2008) before the High Court, which was allowed on 26.10.2017, holding that the revision was not maintainable because the earlier writ petition had been dismissed and the vacancy order had not been challenged separately. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court misread the law and facts. The Court relied on Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh (2005) 5 SCC 531, which held that an order notifying vacancy is only a step in the process of allotment and can be challenged along with the final order in revision under Section 18. The earlier writ petition was dismissed as premature with liberty to challenge after final order, so the tenant was not precluded from raising the vacancy issue in revision. The District Judge's order was restored, and the appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Vacancy Declaration - Maintainability of Revision - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sections 16 and 18 - The issue was whether a revision against an order declaring vacancy is maintainable when the tenant had earlier filed a writ petition which was dismissed as premature with liberty to challenge after final order. The Supreme Court held that the order notifying vacancy is only a step in the process of allotment and does not attain finality; it can be challenged along with the final order in revision under Section 18. The High Court erred in holding that the revision was not maintainable. (Paras 5-11) B) Rent Control - Jurisdictional Fact - Challenge in Revision - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sections 16 and 18 - The question of vacancy is a jurisdictional fact and can be challenged in the revision filed against the allotment order. The Supreme Court relied on Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh (2005) 5 SCC 531 to hold that the vacancy order can be questioned along with the final order. (Paras 9-11) C) Rent Control - Premature Writ Petition - Effect on Subsequent Revision - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sections 16 and 18 - The High Court had dismissed the tenant's writ petition against the vacancy order as premature with liberty to challenge after final order. The Supreme Court held that such dismissal did not preclude the tenant from challenging the vacancy order in revision against the final order. The High Court's view that the revision was not maintainable was based on misreading of law and facts. (Paras 5-6, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revision against an order declaring vacancy under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is maintainable when the tenant had earlier filed a writ petition against the vacancy order which was dismissed as premature with liberty to challenge after final order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 26.10.2017, and restored the District Judge's order dated 5.6.2008 allowing the revision and setting aside the vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 and final order dated 31.5.2007.
Law Points
- Vacancy order is only a step in the process of allotment
- can be challenged along with final order
- Revision against vacancy order is maintainable
- Order notifying vacancy does not attain finality
- Jurisdictional fact can be challenged in revision
