{"id":190337,"date":"1988-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988"},"modified":"2018-11-29T21:17:29","modified_gmt":"2018-11-29T15:47:29","slug":"satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988","title":{"rendered":"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 676, \t\t 1988 SCR (2) 678<\/div>\n
Author: S Rangnathan<\/div>\n
Bench: Rangnathan, S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSATYA NARAIN PANDEY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT13\/01\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nBENCH:\nRANGNATHAN, S.\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR  676\t\t  1988 SCR  (2) 678\n 1988 SCC  (1) 492\t  JT 1988 (1)\t129\n 1988 SCALE  (1)174\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. Urban\t Buildings (Regulation\tof Letting, Rent and\nEviction) Act, 1972-Section 2(1)(d)-Inter-pretation of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     These matters  involved the  interpretation of  section\n2(1)(d) of  the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,\nRent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972).\n     The landlords  of a  building known as Prem Talkies had\nlet out\t the building  to Sunil\t Sharma and another, and the\nlease  to   the\t Sharmas   was\ta   lease  of  the  building\nsimpliciter. The  building was\tsubject to the provisions of\nthe Act\t above-said.  The  landlords  obtained\tdelivery  of\nvacant possession  of the  building on\t30.09.1984 through a\nsuit for  eviction instituted by the landlords. The revision\npetition filed\tby the Sharmas in the High Court against the\norder of  eviction was\tdismissed on 1st August, 1985. After\nthe  Revision\tPetition  of   the  Sharmas  was  dismissed,\nlandlords proceeded  with the  renovation of  the  building,\ninstallation  of   plant,  machinery,\tnew  furniture\t and\nelectrical fittings,  as they wished to let out the building\nalongwith the  plant,  machinery,  furniture  and  apparatus\ninstalled for running a cinema theatre.\n     On February 5, 1986, an agreement of lease was executed\nbetween the  landlords and  the Mehrotras-respondents before\nthis Court  under which\t the Mehrotras\tagreed to  take\t the\nbuilding fully\tequipped with  projector, machines, fixtures\nand furniture  for a  period of five years with an option to\nrenew. A  lease-deed pursuant  to the agreement of the lease\nbetween the  landlord and  the Mehrotras was entered into on\n30.12.86 and  actual possession\t of  the  building,  it\t was\nclaimed, was  given to\tthe Mehrotras  on the  8th  January,\n1987.\n     In the  meantime, the  appellant, Satya  Narain Pandey,\nappeared to  have made an application under s. 16 of the Act\nfor allotment of the building in question to him. He claimed\nto have\t filed that  application on 25.9.86 and that, on the\nbasis  of   that  application,\t the   Additional   District\nMagistrate had\tcalled for  a report from the Rent Control &\nEviction  Inspector,   who  had\t submitted  a  report  dated\n28.10.86, stating that\n679\nthe building  was vacant as on that date. On the other hand,\nthe landlords  claimed that  the vacancy of the building had\nbeen declared  on 6.3.87,  that a  notification calling\t for\napplications for allotment had been issued on 9.3.87 and the\napplication by\tPandey for  allotment had  been made only on\n9.3.87.\t They\talso  applied  to  the\tAdditional  District\nMagistrate  on\t 23.3.87,  requesting\tthat  a\t high-placed\nofficial should be sent to inspect the premises and submit a\nreport, as  the report\tof the\tEviction Inspector  had been\nobtained behind\t their back. The application was granted and\nthe Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted a report on 28.4.87,\nwhich said  that as  on that  date the\tbuilding was a full-\nfledged building  with all the equipments and was not vacant\nas it  appeared to  have been let out to the Mehrotras under\nthe agreements\tof 5.2.86 and 30.12.86. In the meantime, the\nMehrotras, in  pursuance of  the lease\tdeed entered into by\nthem with the landlords, had applied on 8.1.87 for the grant\nof a  licence for  running  a  cinema  in  the\tbuilding  in\nquestion. The  application was\tgranted\t by  the  Additional\nDistrict Magistrate.\n     Pandey, who  had  applied\tfor  the  allotment  of\t the\nbuilding  to  him,  felt  aggrieved  by\t the  grant  of\t the\ncinematographic licence\t to the\t Mehrotras. He\tfiled a writ\npetition in  the High  Court, challenging  the grant  of the\nlicence. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. Pandey,\nthe appellant,\tthen filed  in this  Court Civil  Appeal No.\n1502 of\t 1987 by  Special Leave\t against the decision of the\nHigh Court.\n     The Writ  Petition of  the landlords  filed in the High\nCourt against  the order  dated\t 6.3.87\t of  the  Additional\nDistrict Magistrate,  declaring a vacancy of the building in\nquestion and  the notice  dated 9.3.87 inviting applications\nfor allotment  of accommodation\t in respect  thereof, and  a\nsimilar writ  petition filed  by the  Mehrotras in  the High\nCourt, were  disposed of by the High Court by a consolidated\norder dated  20.11.87, by  which the High Court had accepted\nthe contentions\t of the\t petitioners and  allowed  the\twrit\npetitions setting  aside the  order  dated  6.3.87  and\t the\nnotice\tdated  9.3.87  and  directing  the  Rent  Control  &\nEviction Inspector  to proceed\twith the  allotment  of\t the\ncinema building\t under the  Act. One  of the  respondents in\nthose two writ petitions was Pandey, the appellant, who then\nalso filed  two petitions  for special\tleave in  this Court\nagainst the  said decision of the High Court in the two writ\npetitions above-said.\n     Dismissing the  appeals out  of the  two petitions\t for\nspecial leave  (wherein leave  to appeal  was granted)\tand,\nconsequently, the Civil Appeal No. 1502\/87, the Court\n680\n^\n     HELD: The\tshort question\tthat arose  for decision  in\nthese matters  was whether  the cinema\tbuilding in question\nwas exempt  from the  purview of  the U.P.  Urban  Buildings\n(Regulations of\t Letting, Rent\t& Eviction)  Act,  1972,  by\nreason\tof   the  exemption  contained\tin  section  2(1)(d)\nthereof. As  regards the  controversy regarding the grant of\nthe cinema  licence to\tthe Mehrotras,\tthe High  Court\t was\nclearly right  in holding  that Pandey had no locus standing\nin the\tmatter. However,  the issue  of a  valid licence  to\nMehrotras would\t ultimately depend upon the outcome of their\nright to  occupy the  premises in  question. If\t had  Pandey\nsucceeded in  his contention  that the building continued to\nbe subject to the provisions of the Act, then, the allotment\nof the building on its vacation by the Sharmas would have to\nbe made\t in accordance\twith law and the Mehrotras would not\nbe able\t to occupy  the building  in pursuance\tof the lease\ndeed and  run the cinema, as they would not be entitled to a\nlicence,  as,  a  condition  precedent\tfor  which  was\t the\navailability to\t the exhibitor of a building in which he had\na right\t to exhibit  cinema shows.  This was  clear from the\nprovision in  s. 13  of the  Act. If,  on  the\tother  hand,\nPandey's contention  was not acceptable, then, the Mehrotras\nwould be  entitled to run the theatre. The Court, therefore,\ngranted leave  to Pandey  in the  two petitions\t for special\nleave and  took up  those appeals  for consideration  in the\nfirst place. [686E-H; 687A-B]\n     On a  careful consideration  of the scheme and language\nof the\tAct, the  Court was of the opinion that the judgment\nof the\tHigh Court  should  be\taffirmed  and  the  appeals,\ndismissed. [690D]\n     Section 2(1)  of the  Act exempts from the operation of\nthe Act various types of buildings set out in clauses (a) to\n(f) of the sub-section. The initial attempt of the appellant\nwas to suggest that the above exemptions were available only\nwhere the  premises in question was of a nature specified in\none or\tthe other  of those  clauses as\t on the\t date of the\ncommencement of\t the Act, namely, 15th July, 1972. The Court\ncould not  accept this\tcontention. A perusal of the various\nclauses makes  it clear\t that the building should fulfil the\ncharacter  indicated  therein  on  the\tdate  on  which\t the\nprovisions of  the Act\tare sought  to\tbe  made  applicable\nthereto. It  was clear,\t in the\t opinion of  the Court, that\neven  a\t building  which  might\t have  belonged\t to  private\nindividuals since  1972 would  automatically fall within the\nexemption clause  (a) as  soon as  it was  purchased by\t the\nGovernment  or\t a  local   authority  or  a  public  sector\ncorporation. It\t would not be correct to read the section as\nconferring an exemption only on the buildings which belonged\nto the Government, etc., on 15th July, 1972 and not on those\nacquired by  them thereafter. The position must be construed\nlikewise in respect of the other clauses too. [690E-H]\n681\n     It was  strongly urged by the appellant that the nature\nof the\tbuilding  had  to  be  determined  as  on  the\t30th\nSeptember, 1984,  on which  date the building was vacated by\nthe Sharmas,  and on  that date, the building was subject to\nthe provisions of the Act. A vacancy having arisen in such a\nbuilding, it  was the duty of the landlord to have intimated\nthe same  to the  District Magistrate  and then followed the\nprocedure under\t the Act. Any letting out of the property by\nthem to\t the Mehrotras\twas unlawful in view of s. 13 of the\nAct, and  on  the  strength  of\t an  unlawful  letting,\t the\nlandlords could\t not contend  that the\tbuilding was outside\nthe purview  of the Act. There was a plausibility about this\ncontention but\tthe  Court  could  not\taccept\tit  as\tthis\nconstruction of\t the provisions\t would render  the exemption\nsection totally unworkable. [690H; 691 A-C l\n     Section 2(1)  of the Act takes out of the provisions of\nthe  Act   certain  classes  of\t buildings.  Some  of  these\nexemptions are\tbased on  the nature of the ownership of the\nproperty and some of them, on the nature of the use to which\nthe property  is either\t put or\t intended to  be put. In the\nview of\t the Court, even in respect of a building covered by\nthe Act,  the Act  would cease\tto be  applicable if,  on  a\nvacancy occurring  therein, the\t landlord intended to put it\nto the\tuse specified  in clauses  (c) to (f) of the section\nand in\tcases covered by clauses (c) and (d) of the section,\nalso intended  to let  it out  for such\t use along  with the\nplant  and  apparatus  therefor.  The  Court  favoured\tthis\ninterpretation of  an automatic exclusion of certain classes\nof buildings from the purview of the Act. [691 D; 692G-H l\n     How would\tthe question of the applicability of the Act\nbe determined?\tIt could  certainly not be ipsi dixit of the\nlandlord. If  a landlord  let out  his property or otherwise\ndealt with  it on  his own, and was found at fault, he would\nnot only be punishable but would also be unable to resist an\nallotment of  the property by the District Magistrate in due\ncourse. Since  the District Magistrate was empowered to deal\nwith buildings\tto which  the Act  applied it  was  for\t the\nDistrict Magistrate  to satisfy\t himself, after\t hearing the\nlandlord, that\tit was\tin fact\t a building to which the Act\nwas applicable.\t It was open to the landlord to intimate the\nvacancy but make a claim before the District Magistrate that\nthe Act\t had ceased  to be applicable to his building. Where\nthe landlord  failed to do so, the Magistrate might consider\nthe issue  if vacancy in respect of the building was brought\nto his\tnotice. The  District Magistrate  could inspect\t the\nbuilding and  then decide whether the Act continued to apply\nor not.\t It was\t for  the  District  Magistrate\t to  satisfy\nhimself that  the landlord  intended to let out the premises\nand he\tintended to  let it  out not  as a mere building but\nwith plant and apparatus. The District Magis-\n682\ntrate had to satisfy himself on the materials made available\nto him.\t But it\t would not be incumbent or proper for him to\ngive notice  to the  proposed allottees\t of the property and\nhear them.  An application for allotment merely conferred on\nthe applicant  a right\tto be  considered for allotment of a\nbuilding to  which the\tAct was\t applicable, and  he had  no\nright qua any property until the District Magistrate came to\nthe conclu-\n     sion that\tthe building  was one  which he could allot.\n[694C-H]\n     The  Court\t  did  not  accept  the\t contention  of\t the\nappellant for  remanding the case to the District Magistrate\nfor a  determination after hearing the appellant also on the\nquestion whether the landlords in this case were entitled to\nan exemption. This determination had to be arrived at by the\nDistrict Magistrate  after hearing  the landlord  and on the\nbasis of  such inspection  or enquiries as he might consider\nnecessary.  At\t this  stage,\the  should  not\t permit\t the\nintervention of\t any other  party; a contrary interpretation\nwould make the provisions almost impossible of being worked.\nThere  might  be  several  applicants  for  allotment,\tsome\ngeneral, and  some with regard to specific property. If they\nwere con-\n     sidered  as   having  a   right  to  be  heard  on\t the\navailability of\t a property for allotment, every one must be\nallowed to  intervene.\tThe  landlord  might  have  to\tface\ninnumerable  challenges\t  by  the   various  applicants\t  at\ndifferent points of time, resulting in the proceedings being\ndelayed. All  this was not envisaged under the Act. Once the\nDistrict Magistrate  decided that  a building was not one to\nwhich the  Act applied,\t there was  an end of the matter. If\nthe District  Magistrate  decided  that\t the  building\tfell\nwithin the  provisions of  the Act,  an aggrieved landlord's\nremedy was  only by  way of  a\twrit  petition,\t where\tsuch\nconclusion was\ton the\tface of\t it erroneous or perverse or\nbased on no material. [695B-E]\n     In\t this\tcase,\tthe   District\t Magistrate,   after\nregistering the\t vacancy on 6.3.1987, came to the conclusion\non the\tbasis of  the appellant's  averments  that  the\t Act\ncontinued to  be applicable  to the  premises. The landlords\nchallenged this\t conclusion successfully by a writ petition.\nSubsequent to  6.3.1987, the District Magistrate himself had\nthe property  inspected, and,  apparently, he  did not apply\nhis mind  to the  terms of  the report of the inspection. In\nnormal course, perhaps, the Court would have sent the matter\nback to\t enable him to do this, but in the present case, the\nCourt thought no useful purpose would be served by remanding\nthe  matter   to  the\tDistrict  Magistrate   for  a  fresh\nconsideration. The  report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,\nthe terms  of the lease agreement, the registered lease-deed\nand the\t application for,  and the grant of, a cinematograph\nlicence in  the name  of the  Mehrotras, clearly showed that\nthe landlord intended to let out the property as a fully\n683\nequipped   cinema theatre. In the fact of this, the District\nMsgistrate had\tclearly no  jurisdiction to proceed with the\nallotment of the premises in question. 695F-H; 696A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. l502 of
\n1987 etc.
\n     From the  Judgment\t and  order  dated  14.7.87  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 11907 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     Rajinder Sachhar and K.C. Dua for the Appellant.
\n     Raja Ram  Aggarwal, Salman\t Khurshid, Ishad  Ahmed,  S.
\nWasim,\tN   A  Siddiqui\t  and  Mrs.  Rani  Chhabra  for\t the
\nRespondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     RANGANATHAN,   J.\t  These\t   matters    involve\t the
\ninterpretation\tof   section  2(1)(d)\tof  the\t U.P.  Urban
\nBuildings (Regulation  of Letting,  Rent and  Eviction) Act,
\n1972, (Act No. 13 of 1972), (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nAct’). Section\t2(1) of\t the Act  exempt certain  classes of
\nbuildings  from\t  the  application  of\tthe  Act.  One\tsuch
\nexemption, under clause (d), is in respect of:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(d) any  building used or intended to be used for
\n\t  any other  industrial purpose (that is to say, for
\n\t  the  purpose\t of  manufacture,   preservation  or
\n\t  processing  of  any  goods)  or  as  a  cinema  or
\n\t  theatre, where  the plant  and apparatus installed
\n\t  for such  purpose in\tthe building  is leased\t out
\n\t  along with the building.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Though the  question for  our ultimate.\t decision is a short
\none, there  has been  a multiplicity  of proceedings between
\nthe concerned  parties. The  relevant facts, therefore, need
\nto be set out at some length.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  building known  as Prem  Talkies,\tsituated  in
\nMohalla Sahadatpura,  Maunath  Bhanjan,\t District  Azamgarh,
\nU.P.,  belongs\t to  Behari  Lal  Tandon  and  five  others,
\n(hereinafter referred  to as  ‘the landlords’). They had let
\nout the\t building to  Sunil Sharma  and another.  Though the
\nlandlords claim\t that the  lease was  of the  building along
\nwith certain  fixtures, it  has to be taken for the purposes
\nof the present proceedings that the lease to the Sharmas was
\nthe lease  of the  building simplicity and that the building
\nwas then subject to the provi-\n<\/p>\n
684<\/span><\/p>\n
sions of the Act. This was the finding given in the suit for
\neviction which\tthe landlords  had  instituted\tagainst\t the
\nSharmas.  That\t decree\t has  since  become  final  and\t the
\nrespondents have  made out  before us  no grounds  to differ
\nfrom that  finding  The\t landlords  succeeded  in  obtaining
\ndelivery of  vacant possession\tof  the\t building  from\t the
\nSharmas on 30.09.1984.\n<\/p>\n
     3. It  appears that  the Sharmas  had filed  a revision
\npetition in the High Court against the eviction order, which
\nwas eventually\tdismissed on 1st August, 1985. The landlords
\nclaim that,  subsequent to  the recovery of possession, they
\nwished to  let out the building along with plant, machinery,
\nfurniture and  apparatus installed  therein  for  running  a
\ncinema theatre.\t However, steps\t in this direction by way of
\nrenovation  of\t the  building,\t  installation\t of   plant,
\nmachinery, new\tfurniture and  electrical fittings  and\t the
\nexecution of  a lease deed could be embarked upon only after
\nthe revision  petition of  the Sharmas\twas dismissed.\tThey
\nclaim that  they proceeded  to do the needful. Thereafter on
\n5th Feb., 86, an agreement of lease was executed between the
\nlandlords and  the Mehrotras  (respondents  in\tthe  matters
\nbefore us).  Under this\t agreement, the\t Mehrotras agreed to
\ntake the  building fully  equipped with projector, machines,
\nfixtures and  furniture in  full  running  condition  for  a
\nperiod of  five years  with an option to renew for a further
\nperiod of  two years,  on certain terms and conditions which
\nare not\t relevant for  our present purposes. It was provided
\nthat the  Mehrotras should  obtain a cinematographic licence
\nfrom the  appropriate authorities  by the  end of  the\tyear
\n1987,  failing\t which\tthe   lease  agreement\twould  stand
\ncancelled. It  is claimed  that a generator was purchased on
\n20th June,  1986 and a projector on 22.9.1986 and that these
\nwere duly  installed in\t the building  on 26.10.86.  A lease
\ndeed  pursuant\t to  the  agreement  of\t lease\tbetween\t the
\nlandlords and  the Mehrotras was entered into on 30.12.1986,
\nmore or\t less broadly  on the same terms as the agreement of
\nlease  earlier\treferred  to.  It  is  claimed\tthat  actual
\nphysical  possession  of  the  building\t was  given  to\t the
\nMehrotras on the 8th of January, 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     4. In  the meantime, it appears, the present appellant,
\nSatya Narain  Pandey had  made an application under s. 16 of
\nthe Act,  praying that\tthe building  in question  should be
\nallotted to  him. There\t is a  dispute regarding the date of
\nthe application.  Pandey claims\t that  the  application\t was
\nfiled on 25.9.86 and that, on the basis of this application,
\nthe Additional\tDistrict Magistrate  had called for a report
\nfrom the  Rent Control and Eviction Inspector, who submitted
\na report  on 28.10.86.\tstating that the building was vacant
\nas on that date. On the
\n685<\/span>
\n other\thand, the  landlords claim  that the  vacancy of the
\nbuilding had  been declared on 6.3.1987, that a notification
\ncalling for  applications for  allotment had  been issued on
\n9.3 87\tand that the application by Pandey for allotment has
\nbeen made  only on  9.3.87. The\t landlords, thereupon  filed
\nW.P. No.  10346\/87 in  the Allahabad High Court praying that
\nthe order  dated 6.3.87 and the notification dated 9.3.87 be
\nquashed. They  also say\t that, on  coming  to  know  of\t the
\nalleged report\tof the\tRent Control  and Eviction Inspector
\ndated 28.10.86,\t they had applied to the Additional District
\nMagistrate on 23.3.1987, pointing out that the report of the
\nEviction Inspector  had been  obtained behind their back and
\nrequesting that a fairly high-placed official should be sent
\nto inspect  the premises  again and  submit  a\treport\tThis
\napplication  was   granted  by\t the   Additional   District
\nMagistrate and,\t in pursuance  of the  said order,  the Sub-
\nDivisional  Magistrate\t submitted  a\treport\ton  28.4  87
\nAccording to this report, the building as on that date was a
\nfull-fledged cinema  building fully  equipped with projector
\nexhaust\t and   electric\t fans,\t electric  fixtures,  diesel
\ngenerating set,\t etc, and  the building\t was not  vacant. He
\nalso reported  that the\t landlords appeared  to have let out
\nthe building to the Mehrotras under the agreements of 5 2 86
\n& 30 12 86
\n     5\tWhen   these  proceedings  were\t taking\t place,\t the
\nMehrotras, in  pursuance of  the lease\tdeed entered into by
\nthem with  the landlords  applied for the grant of a licence
\nfor running a cinema in the premises in question under the U
\nP. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1985 They did this on 8.1.1987.
\nThis application  was granted  by  the\tAdditional  District
\nMagistrate, Azamgarh  by his  order dated 22 6 1987. Pandey,
\nwho as mentioned above, had applied for the allotment of the
\npremises to  himself. considered  himself aggrieved  by\t the
\ngrant of  the cinematographic  licence to  the Mehrotras  on
\n22.6.1987 He,  therefore, filed\t Writ Petition\tNo  11907\/87
\nbefore the  Allahabad High  Court  This\t writ  petition\t was
\ndismissed. The\tCourt held that the order granting a licence
\nto the\tMehrotras could\t not be quashed on the ground of the
\npendency  of  the  allotment  proceedings  before  the\tRent
\nControl &  Eviction officer and that Pandey did not have any
\nright to  challenge the\t grant of licence merely because the
\nvacancy of  the\t building  was\tdeclared  at  his  instance,
\nparticularly when  the dispute as to whether the Act applied
\nor not\tto the\tpremises in question is yet to be decided A.
\nno 1502\/87  has been  preferred against\t the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench\tin  the\t above\twrit  petition.\t This  court
\ngranted special\t leave to  Pandev by its order dated 14.7.87
\nand also directed, that, in the meantime the proceedings for
\nthe grant of the cinema licence be stayed .\n<\/p>\n
686<\/span><\/p>\n
     6. We  have mentioned that the landlords had filed Writ
\nPetition No  10346 of  1987  in\t the  Allahabad\t High  Court
\nagainst the  order of  the  Additional\tDistrict  Magistrate
\ndeclaring a  vacancy in\t respect of the premises in question
\nby the\torder dated  6 3 87 and notice dated 9 3.87 inviting
\napplications for  allotment of\taccommodation thereto. Their
\ncontention was\tthat the cinema building stood excluded from
\nthe purview  of the  Act by  virtue of\tsection 2(1)(d)\t and
\nthat, therefore.  the question\tof declaring  a\t vacancy  or
\nallotting it to any person did not arise. The Mehrotras also
\nfiled Writ  Petition No 12263 of 1987 raising the same pleas
\nand seeking  the same relief These writ petitions were heard
\ntogether and disposed of by a consolidated order of the High
\nCourt dated 20.11 87 The High Court accepted the contentions
\nof the\tpetitioners and allowed the writ petitions The order
\ndated 3\t 87 and\t notice dated  9 3 87 were set aside and the
\nRent Control & Eviction officer Azamgarh was directed not to
\nproceed\t with  the  allotment  of  the\tcinema\tbuilding  in
\nquestion  under\t  the  Act  Pandey,  who  w-as\tone  of\t the
\nrespondents in\tthe above  writ petitions, has filed SLP nos
\n15030-31 of  1987 for  leave to\t appeal from the decision of
\nthe Allahabad High Court in these writ petitions\n<\/p>\n
     7. From  the above\t narration of facts, it will be seen
\nthat the  short question  that arises  for decision in these
\nmatters is  as to whether the cinema building in question is
\nexempt from  the  purview  of  the  Act\t by  reason  of\t the
\nexemption contained in section 2(1)(d) The other controversy
\nin A.  1502\/87 regarding  the grant of the cinema licence to
\nthe Mehrotras  need not\t detain us  long. The High Court was
\nclearly right  in holding that Pandey had no locus standi in
\nthe  matter  However,  the  issue  of  a  valid\t licence  to
\nMehrotras will\tultimately depend  on the  outcome of  their
\nright to occupy the premises in question. If Pandey succeeds
\nin his\tcontention that the building continues to be subject
\nto the provisions of the Act, then, obviously, the allotment
\nof the\tbuilding on its vacation by the Sharmas will have to
\nbe made\t by the Additional District Magistrate in accordance
\nwith law  and the  Mehrotras will  not be  in a\t position to
\noccupy the  building and run the cinema theatre in pursuance
\nof the\tlease deed  and the licence obtained by them This is
\nclear from  the provision contained in S. 13 of the Act. If,
\non  the\t  other\t hand,\tthe  contention\t of  Pandey  is\t not
\nacceptable, then  the Mehrotras\t will be entitled to run the
\ntheatre in  pursuance of  the lease  deed in exercise of the
\ncinematographic licence obtained by them In this view of the
\nmatter, the grant of licence to the Mehrotras recedes to the
\nbackground and is only relevant to this extent that, in case
\nthe lease  of the  building to\tthe Mehrotras  is held to be
\ncontrary to  the provisions  of the  Act, they\tmay  not  be
\nentitled to the licence, a condi-\n<\/p>\n
687<\/span><\/p>\n
tion precedent\tfor which  will be  the availability, to the
\nexhibitor, of  a building in which he has a right to exhibit
\ncinema shows.  We may,\ttherefore, leave  the controversy in
\nCivil Appeal  No. 1502\/87,  aside for  the  time  being.  We
\nshall, therefore,  grant special  leave\t to  Pandey  in\t the
\nSpecial Leave  Petitions and proceed to dispose of the same,
\nas we have heard the learned counsel on both sides\n<\/p>\n
     8. We  may, at  this  stage,  outline  the\t scheme\t and
\nsalient provisions  of the Act. Like other enactments of its
\ntype, it  was a\t measure designed to meet the acute shortage
\nof urban  accommodation in  U.P. during and after the Second
\nWorld War.  The continuing  increase in urban population and
\nthe relatively\tslow pace  of house-building activity mainly
\ndue to\tshortage of  materials had  rendered it necessary to
\ncontinue the controls on rents, letting and eviction imposed
\nearlier as  a war measure or temporary legislation. The long
\ntitle of  the Act  shows that one its objects was to provide
\n“for the  regulation of letting certain classes of buildings
\nsituated in  urban areas” and this object is given effect to
\nby the\tprovisions of  Sections 1 & 2 of the Act. By section
\n1, the\tAct is made applicable to all buildings in the urban
\nareas of  the State.  However,\tsection\t 2  exempts  certain
\nbuildings form\tthe operation  of the  Act. It is sufficient
\nhere to\t extract the  provisions of section 2(1), which read
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Exemptions from  operation of Act: (1) Nothing in this
\n     Act shall apply to the following namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) any  building of\twhich the  Government  or  a
\n\t  local authority  or a public sector Corporation is
\n\t  the landlord; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) any  building belonging  to  or  vested  in  a
\n\t  recognised educational  institution, the  whole of
\n\t  the income from which is utilised for the purposes
\n\t  of such institution; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (c) any  building used or intended to be used as a
\n\t  factory within  the meaning  of the Factories Act,
\n\t  1948 (Act  No. LXIII\tof 1948) (where the plant of
\n\t  such\tfactory\t  is  leased   out  along  with\t the
\n\t  building); or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (d) any  building used  or intended to be used for
\n\t  any other  industrial purpose (that is to say, for
\n\t  the  purpose\t of  manufacture,   preservation  or
\n\t  processing of
\n688<\/span>
\n\t  any goods)  or as  a cinema  or theatre, where the
\n\t  plant and  apparatus installed for such purpose in
\n\t  the  building\t  is  leased   out  along  with\t the
\n\t  building:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided\tthat nothing  in this  clause shall apply in
\n     relation to any shop or other building, situated within
\n     the precincts  of the cinema or theatre, the tenancy in
\n     respect of\t which has  been created separately from the
\n     tenancy in respect of the cinema or theatre; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t   (e) any building used or intended to be used as a
\n\t  place\t of   public  entertainment   or   amusement
\n\t  (including any sports stadium, but not including a
\n\t  cinema or  theatre), or  any building\t appurtenant
\n\t  thereto; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (f)   any  building  built  and\theld  by  a  society
\n\t  registered under  the Societies  Registration Act,
\n\t  1860 (Act  No XXI  of 1860)  or by  a\t cooperative
\n\t  society, company  or firm  and intended solely for
\n\t  its own occupation or for the occupation of any of
\n\t  its officers\tor servants, whether on rent or free
\n\t  of rent,  or as  a guest  house, by  whatever name
\n\t  called, for  the occupation  of  per\tsons  having
\n\t  dealing with it in the ordinary course of business
\n\t  “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      9\t The clear  effect of  this section  is that  if any
\nbuilding falls\tunder any  one of  the above  clauses, it is
\nexempt from  the operation of the Act. The whole case of the
\nlandlords here\tis that the premises in question falls under
\nclause (d) The appellant, on the other hand, starts from the
\nuncontroverted position\t that, as on 30.09 1984 the building
\nwas covered  by the  provisions of  the Act. It is contended
\nthat, once  this position  is admitted,\t there is  no escape
\nfrom the  conclusion that  any\tsubsequent  letting  of\t the
\npremises can only be in the manner prescribed in Chapter III
\nof the\tAct, which contains provisions for the regulation of
\nletting of premises governed by the Act. The scheme of these
\nprovisions is  that the\t District Magistrate  maintains\t two
\nregisters one of all vacancies of buildings to which the Act
\napplies\t and  the  other,  of  all  applications,  by  needy
\npersons, for  allotment The  vacancies come to the notice of
\nthe District  Magistrate by  reason of an obligation imposed
\non landlords  and tenants  to notify the vacancy or expected
\nvacancy to  him within\ta stated  period (s.  15). There are
\nalso  provisions  of  deemed  vacancy  and  a  provision  to
\nascertain whether  a building  is vacant  or not,  with\t the
\ndetails of which we are not con
\n689<\/span>
\ncerned The  requirements of  accommodation  are\t known\tfrom
\napplications in prescribed forms received from needy persons
\nfrom time  to time  seeking an\tallotment in general or of a
\nspecific building which is or is likely to fall, vacant. The
\nvacancies are  notified to public specifying a date on which
\nallotment  will\t be  considered\t with  notice  also  to\t the
\nlandlord. On  the date fixed, the District Magistrate allots
\nthe vacant building to the applicants in accordance with the
\nprocedure and priorities outlined in the rules. The District
\nMagistrate, under  s. 17,  is required\tto make an allotment
\norder within  a specified period. Failing this, the landlord
\nis entitled  to require\t that the building shall be allotted
\nto a  person of his choice and the District Magistrate shall
\ncomply\twith  his  request  unless  there  are\tspecial\t and
\nadequate reasons  not to  do so but to allot the building to
\nsome other  person. The\t landlord  can\talso  apply  to\t the
\nDistrict Magistrate  to release\t the building to himself The
\nlandlord, however,  can\t secure\t a  release  order  only  in
\ncertain circumstances outlined in sub-section (2) of section
\n16 It is unnecessary to set out these circumstances here and
\nit is  sufficient to  say that\tthese circumstances  do\t not
\nexist in  the present  case.  Teeth  are  provided  for\t the
\nenforcement of\tthe above  scheme by  providing\t that,\tonce
\nthere is  a vacancy,  the building can be dealt with only on
\nthe basis  of a\t release or  allotment order (s 16); that it
\ncannot be let out to any person other than allottee (s. 11);
\nand that any person occupying it otherwise than in pursuance
\nof an  allotment or  release order  shall be deemed to be an
\nunauthorised occupant  of the  building or  part thereof (s.\n<\/p>\n
13). Any  contravention of the provisions of the Act is made
\npunishable as  a criminal offence (s.31). On the strength of
\nthese provisions,  it is  contended that,  when the premises
\nbecame vacant  on 30.9.84,  the provisions  of the  Act were
\napplicable to  it. It was not open to the landlords to flout
\nthe requirements  of this  Act and to proceed to let out the
\npremises to  persons of\t their\town  choice.  There  was  no
\nalternative for\t them but  to let  out the  premises  to  an
\nallottee or,  if  they\tcould,\tto  obtain  release  of\t the
\npremises to  themselves. They  are not entitled to place the
\nbuilding outside  the purview of the Act by merely declaring
\nthat they intended to let the premises thereafter along with
\nthe plant  and machinery thus attracting the exemption under
\nsection 2(1)(d).  To permit  the landlords  to do  so  would
\nfacilitate easy\t avoidance of  the provisions  of the Act by
\nlandlords purporting or claiming to change the nature or use
\nof the\tproperty or  the nature of the letting in such a way
\nas to  fall under  the terms  of one  clause or other of the
\nexemption  section.   This,  it\t is  urged,  should  not  be
\npermitted.\n<\/p>\n
     l0. On the other hand, the stand taken by the landlords
\nis that section 2(1) exempts certain categories of buildings
\naltogether from
\n690<\/span>
\nthe purview  of the Act. In the present case, on the date of
\nnotification of\t the vacancy,  namely, 6.3.87,\tthe building
\nlet out\t was a\ttheatre, with full cinematographic equipment
\nand furniture  installed therein.  It was  also the  subject
\nmatter of  lease, as  a running cinema theatre, in favour of
\nthe Mehrotras.\tThis being  so, the building fell within the
\nclass of  buildings exempted  under section  2(1)(d). It  is
\nsubmitted that,\t the moment  s. 2(1)(d)\t is  attracted,\t the
\nbuilding is  automatically taken  outside the purview of the
\nAct, even  if, earlier,\t it had been a building to which the
\nprovisions of  the Act were applicable. It is submitted that
\nthe  Act  is  intended\tto  regulate  only  the\t letting  of
\nbuildings and  not to regulate or control the development of
\ncommerce or  to impair\tthe rights  of the landlords to deal
\nwith  their  property  in  any\tmanner\tthey  like.  It\t is,
\ntherefore, contended  that  the\t High  Court  was  right  in
\nholding that  the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to
\ndeal with the building under the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     11. Though\t there is  a plausibility  in the contention
\nurged on  behalf of  the appellant,  we are of opinion, on a
\ncareful consideration of the scheme and language of the Act,
\nthat the  judgment of  the High Court should be affirmed and
\nthe appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     12. Section  2(1) of the Act exempts from the operation
\nof the\tAct various  clauses of buildings set out in clauses\n<\/p>\n
(a) to\t(f) of\tthat sub-section.  The\tinitial\t attempt  on
\nbehalf of  the appellants  was to  suggest  that  the  above
\nexemptions are available only where the premises in question
\nwas of\tthe nature  specified in  one or  the other of those
\nclauses as  on the  date of  the commencement  of  the\tAct,
\nnamely, 15th July, 1972. We cannot accept this contention. A
\nperusal of  the various\t clauses makes\tit  clear  that\t the
\nbuilding should\t fulfill the  character indicated therein on
\nthe date on which the provisions of the Act are sought to be
\nmade applicable thereto. To give an illustration, clause (a)
\nexempts “any  building of  which the  Government or  a local
\nauthority or  a public\tsector corporation is the landlord.”
\nIn our\topinion it is clear that even a building which might
\nhave  belonged\t to  private  individuals  since  1972\twill
\nautomatically fall within this exemption clause as soon as t
\nis purchased  by the  Government or  a local  authority or a
\npublic sector  corporation. It\twill not  be correct to read
\nthe section as conferring an exemption only on the buildings
\nwhich belonged to the government etc. On 15th July, 1972 and
\nnot to\tthose acquired by them thereafter. The position must
\nbe construed likewise in respect of the other clauses too.\n<\/p>\n
     13. It  is, however,  strongly urged  on behalf  of the
\nappellants is
\n691<\/span>
\nthat in\t any event,  the nature\t of the\t building has  to be
\ndetermined as  on 30th\tSeptember, 1984\t on which  date\t the
\npremises were  vacated by  the Sharmas.\t There is no dispute
\nthat, as  on that  date, the  building was  subject  to\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act.\t That being so, and a vacancy having
\narisen in  such a building, it was the duty of the landlords
\nto have\t intimated the\tsame to\t the District Magistrate and
\nthen gone  through the\tprocedure prescribed  under the\t Act
\nbefore letting\tout the\t property to any person. Any letting
\nout of the property by them to the Mehrotras was unlawful in
\nview of\t s. 13\tof the Act and the landlords cannot be heard
\nto contend, on the strength of such an unlawful letting that
\nthe premises stand outside the purview of the Act. There is,
\nas we  said earlier,  a plausibility  about this  contention
\nbut,  in   our\topinion,  it  cannot  be  accepted  as\tthis
\nconstruction of\t the provisions\t would render  the exemption
\nsection totally unworkable.\n<\/p>\n
     14. We  may first\tconsider the nature of the exemption
\nconferred by  s. 2(1). It takes out of the provisions of the
\nAct certain  clauses of\t buildings. Some of these exemptions
\nare based on the nature of the ownership of the property and
\nsome of\t them on the nature of the use to which the property
\nis either put or intended to be put. So far as the former is
\nconcerned, there  can be  no doubt  that any  building\tthat
\nsatisfies  the\t ownership  requirements   set\tout  therein
\nautomatically goes  outside the\t purview of  the Act.  Thus,
\nunder clauses (a) and (b), even if a building was previously
\nsubject to the provisions of the Act, it will cease to be so
\nthe moment  it is  purchased by\t a  Government\tor  a  local
\nauthority or  a public\tsector corporation  or a  recognised
\neducational institution. The vesting of the ownership of the
\npremises in  one  of  the  categories  of  bodies  mentioned
\neffects a  statutory  cut  off\tof  the\t building  from\t the
\napplicability of the provisions of the Act. The exclusion of
\nthe Act would be automatic and does not need any application
\nby the\tprevious or  subsequent landlord or any order by the
\nAdditional District  Magistrate under  any of the provisions
\nof the\tAct. So far as clauses (e) and (f) are concerned the
\nexemption depends  upon the  nature of\tthe use to which the
\nproperty is  put. There\t is no difficulty in cases where the
\nbuilding, at the time it falls vacant, was actually used for
\nthe purposes  specified in these clauses: say, as a place of
\npublic\tentertainment  or  amusement.  It  would,  like\t the
\nbuildings described  in clauses (a) and (b) fall outside the
\nprovisions of  the Act.\t So far\t there is no difficulty. But
\nthe exemption  conferred by  these clauses takes in not only
\nactual user  but also  intended user;  that is,\t the use  to
\nwhich the  property is proposed to be put, whatever may have
\nbeen the  use it was put to earlier. Thus, if a building let
\nout privately  earlier, is intended to be used as a place of
\namusement or entertainment or a Cooperative
\n692<\/span>
\nSociety decides\t to convert  a flat  let out  to an outsider
\nearlier into  one for occupation by its own officer, it will
\nstand outside the purview of the Act. Now we come to clauses\n<\/p>\n
(c) &  (d) which  not only talk of user or intended user but
\nalso impose  a further\trequirement that plant and apparatus
\n“is leased  out along  with the\t building”. This  creates  a
\nsomewhat anomalous  situation. It  is argued  that,  if\t the
\nbuilding had  been leased  out earlier without the plant and
\nmachinery, it  would be subject to the provisions of the Act
\nand cannot  be leased  out without  the\t permission  of\t the
\nDistrict  Magistrate;  any  such  lease\t as  may  have\tbeen
\npurportedly entered  into without  such permission  would be
\ncontrary to  the provisions  of s. 11 and therefore, invalid
\nand illegal. It is argued that where the building is let out
\nwrongfully  without   an  authorisation\t  by  the   District
\nMagistrate, such  letting should be ignored and it cannot be
\nsaid that  the building\t “is let  out” along  with plant and
\nmachinery.  In\t our  opinion\tthis  is   not\tthe  correct
\ninterpretation of  these clauses.  What they  exempt are: “a
\nbuilding intended  to be  used as  a factory ….. where the
\nplant of such factory is leased out along with the building”
\nand a “building intended to be used for any other industrial
\npurpose or a cinema or theatre where the plant and apparatus
\ninstalled for  such purpose  in the  building is  leased out
\nalong with  the building”.  Each of  these clauses should be
\nread  as  a  whole  and\t doing\tso,  the  exemption  is\t not
\nrestricted only\t to cases where there is a prior valid lease
\nof the\tbuilding with  plant and  apparatus but\t would\talso
\nextend to  cases where,\t though\t the  building\tearlier\t was
\nwithout such  plant and\t apparatus or was not being used for
\nsuch purposes  as are  specified, the  owner intends  to put
\nthem to\t the specified\tuses by\t letting them  out with\t the
\nnecessary  plant  and  apparatus.  The\twords  “is  leased”,
\ntherefore, do  not  connote  the  idea\tof  a  valid  actual
\nsubsisting lease  of the  building with plant on the date of
\nvacancy; they  are only\t descriptive of\t the manner in which
\nthe building  is intended  to be used. What is needed is (a)
\nthat the  building should  be intended\tto be  used  by\t the
\nprospective tenant,  for the  purpose specified in either of
\nthe clauses  and (b) that in order to facilitate the purpose
\nbeing achieved the building is intended to be let out to him
\nalong with  necessary plant  and  apparatus.  In  our  view,
\ntherefore, even in respect of a building covered by the Act,
\nthe Act\t will cease  to\t be  applicable\t if,  on  a  vacancy
\noccurring therein, the landlord intends to put it to the use
\nspecified in  clauses (c)  to (f)  and, in  cases covered by
\nclauses (c) and (d), also intends to let it out for such use
\nalong with the plant and apparatus necessary therefor.\n<\/p>\n
     15. We  lean in  favour of\t this interpretation,  of an
\nautomatic exclusion of certain classes of buildings from the
\npurview of the Act, for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
693<\/span><\/p>\n
     (i) The  declaration in s. 2(1) that nothing in the Act
\n     applies to A the classes of buildings mentioned therein
\n     has to  be given effect to. It is patent that buildings
\n     falling under clauses (a) and (b) go out automatically.
\n     A different  rule cannot  apply in respect of the other
\n     clauses.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) The  Act does  not contain  any provision  or
\n     machinery whereby\tthe owner  of a\t building subject to
\n     the  provisions   of  the\tAct  can  ask  the  District
\n     Magistrate or other authority to record the purchase of
\n     the property by the bodies specified in clauses (a) and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) or  to grant  permission for  converting it  into a
\n     category of  building  for\t which\texemption  would  be
\n     applicable under  clauses\t(c)  to\t (f).  It  does\t not
\n     specifically confer  jurisdiction on  any authority  to
\n     adjudicate upon  a claim  that a  building falls within
\n     the exemption clause and that the provisions of the Act
\n     are, therefore, not applicable to it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  t(iii) on  the other hand, under the scheme of the
\n     Act on there being a vacancy in a building to which the
\n     Act applies,  it can  only be  re-occupied in  terms of
\n     either an allotment order or a release order. A release
\n     order  under   s.\t16   can  be  only  got\t in  certain
\n     circumstances. It\tcannot be obtained by a landlord for
\n     the mere asking. The District Magistrate cannot release
\n     the building  to the  landlord, even if he is satisfied
\n     of the  landlord’s intention to use the building in the
\n     manner specified  in one of the clauses of section 2(1)
\n     and  his  intention  to  let  it  out  with  plant\t and
\n     apparatus. This  being so, the interpretation suggested
\n     by the  appellants would  mean that, once a building is
\n     subject to\t the provisions\t of the Act, it can never be
\n     taken out\tof the\tAct  even  if  the  requirements  of
\n     clauses (a)  and (b)  or the  intended user in terms of
\n     clauses (c) to (f) of s. 2(1) can be established. F\n<\/p>\n
\t  (iv) The  above interpretation  does not result in
\n     facilitating any avoidance of the provisions of the Act
\n     as contended  for by the appellants. As rightly pointed
\n     out on  behalf of the landlords, the Act is intended to
\n     regulate the  letting of  the premises  but it  is\t not
\n     intended to curb commercial activities or to impair the
\n     right of  the landlord  to change the nature of the use
\n     to which his building should be put. Rather, the manner
\n     in which clauses (c) to (f) are phrased would show that
\n     the  intention   of  the\tLegislature  was  to  exempt
\n     buildings used or intended to be used for commercial or
\n     industrial purposes  and that intention should be given
\n     effect to. A lease given by the landlord in this manner
\n694<\/span>
\n cannot\t be attacked as illegal or collusive to get over the
\nprovisions of  the Act as there is nothing in law to prevent
\nthe landlord from doing so.\n<\/p>\n
       (v)  The\t appellant’s  argument\toverlooks  that\t the
\nrestrictions in\t ss. 11, 13, 16 and other provisions are all
\napplicable only\t where the  building does  not fall under s.
\n2(1). When  it does, the right of the landlord to let it out
\nto a  tenant of\t his choice cannot be defeated by continuing
\nto  read   those  restrictions\t merely\t because  they\twere
\napplicable at one time to the property.\n<\/p>\n
      16.  Naturally the  question would arise as to how the
\nquestion regarding  the applicability  of the  Act is  to be
\ndetermined. It\tcan certainly  not  be\tipsi  dixit  of\t the
\nlandlord. If  a landlord  acts on  his own  and lets out the
\nporperty or  otherwise deals with it, he takes the risk and,
\nif he  is found\t at fault,  will not  only  render  himself.
\npunishable but will also be unable to resist an allotment of
\nthe property by the District Magistrate in due course. Since
\nthe District  Magistrate has  been empowered  to  deal\twith
\nbuildings to  which the\t Act applies, it is for the District
\nMagistrate to  satisfy himself,\t before he  proceeds to deal
\nwith any  premises, that  it is\t in fact a building to which
\nthe provisions\tof the Act are applicable. It is open to the
\nlandlord to intimate the vacancy but make a claim before the
\nDistrict Magistrate that the Act has ceased to be applicable
\nto his\tbuilding but he is not obliged to do this. Where the
\nlandlord fails\tto do  so, the\tMagistrate may\tconsider the
\nissue if  the vacancy  in respect of the building is brought
\nto his notice. The District Magistrate has powers to inspect
\nthe property  and then\tdecide whether\tthe Act continues to
\napply or  not. It is for the District Magistrate to consider
\nthe circumstances  and to  satisfy himself that the landlord
\nintends to  let out  the premises  for one  of the  purposes
\nspecified and,\tin respect  of clauses\t(c) &  (d), that  he
\nintends to  let it out not as a mere building but with plant
\nand apparatus.\tWe would  like to  make it  clear,  however,
\nthat, in  this\tprocess,  the  District\t Magistrate  has  to
\nsatisfy himself\t on the materials made available to him. But
\nit will\t not be\t incumbent or  proper on  his part  to\tgive
\nnotice to  or convene  any of  the proposed allottees of the
\nproperty and  hear them on this issue. Whether a building is
\none to which the provisions of the Act are applicable or not
\nis a  matter  which  has  to  be  decided  by  the  District
\nMagistrate after  hearing  the\tlandlord.  It  is  a  matter
\nbetween the  landlord and the Government. An application for
\nallotment merely  confers on  the applicant  a right  to  be
\nconsidered  for\t  allotment  of\t a  building  to  which\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act are applicable,, and he has no rights
\nqua any\t property until the District Magistrate comes to the
\nconclusion
\n695<\/span>
\nthat the  building is  one which  he can deal with by way of
\nallotment. A\n<\/p>\n
     17. It  was contended  on behalf of the appellants that
\nthe present  case may  be  remanded  back  to  the  District
\nMagistrate  for\t  a   determination,   after   hearing\t the
\nappellants, also  on the  question whether  the landlords in
\nthe present case are entitled to an exemption. We are unable
\nto agree.  We are of the opinion that this determination has
\nto be  arrived at  by the  District Magistrate after hearing
\nthe  landlord  and  on\tthe  basis  of\tsuch  inspection  or
\nenquiries as  he may  consider necessary.  We are clearly of
\nthe opinion  that at  this stage  he should  not permit\t the
\nintervention of\t any other  party. A contrary interpretation
\nwould make the provisions almost impossible of being worked.
\nThere may  be several applicants for allotment, some general
\nand some  with regard  to the specific property. If they are
\nconsidered as having a right to be heard on the availability
\nof a  property for  allotment, every  one of  them  must  be
\nallowed to  intervene. Different  persons might\t come in  at
\ndifferent  stages   and\t challenge  the\t contention  of\t the
\nlandlord that  the building  is not available for allotment.
\nThe landlord  may have\tto face\t innumerable  challenges  by
\nvarious applicants  at different  points of  time  and\tthey
\nmight claim  that they\twant to lead evidence and thus delay
\nthe proceedings.  We do not think that all this is envisaged
\nunder the  Act. It is for the District Magistrate to come to
\nthe conclusion whether a building is available for allotment
\nor not,\t and once  he decides  that it\tis not a building to
\nwhich the  Act applies,\t that is an end of the matter. If he
\ncomes to  a conclusion\tthat the  building falls  within the
\nprovisions of  the Act\tand the\t landlord is  aggrieved, the
\nlandlord’s remedy  has only  to be by way of a writ petition
\nwhere such  conclusion is  on its face erroneous or based on
\nno material or perverse.\n<\/p>\n
     18.  In  the  present  case,  the\tDistrict  Magistrate
\nregistered the vacancy on 6.3.87; in other words, he came to
\na  conclusion,\tmainly\ton  the\t basis\tof  the\t appellant’s
\naverments, that\t the Act  continues to\tbe applicable to the
\npremises.   The\t  landlords   challenged   this\t  conclusion
\nsuccessfully in\t the writ  petition. As pointed out by them,
\nsubsequent to  6.3.87, the  District Magistrate\t himself had
\nthe property  inspected and  there is  a report available on
\nrecord. Apparently,  the District Magistrate has not applied
\nhis mind  to the terms of the report. Perhaps, in the normal
\ncourse, we  would have sent the matter back to enable him to
\ndo this.  However, in the circumstances of the present case,
\nwe think  no useful purpose would be served by remitting the
\nmatter\tback   to  the\t District   Magistrate\t for   fresh
\nconsideration. As  pointed out by the High Court, the report
\nof the\tSub-Divisional Magistrate,  the terms  of the  lease
\nagreement and the registered lease deed as
\n696<\/span>
\nwell  as   the\tapplication   for,  and\t  the  grant  of,  a
\ncinematographic\t licence  in  the  name\t of  the  Mehrotras,
\nclearly show  that the\tlandlord intended  to  let  out\t the
\nproperty as  a fully  equipped cinema  theatre and that they
\nhave done  so. In  the face  of this  evidence, the District
\nMagistrate had\tclearly no  jurisdiction to proceed with the
\nallotment of  the premises in question. We would, therefore,
\nuphold the findings of the High Court in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
     19. In  the result\t the appeals against the order dated
\n20.11.87 are  dismissed. In consequence of the view taken by
\nus, C.A.  No. l502\/87  has also\t to be\tdismissed. We direct
\naccordingly. In the circumstances, however, we make no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S . L .\t\t\t     Appeal and petitions dismissed.\n697<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 676, 1988 SCR (2) 678 Author: S Rangnathan Bench: Rangnathan, S. PETITIONER: SATYA NARAIN PANDEY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT13\/01\/1988 BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSatya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-29T15:47:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T15:47:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988\"},\"wordCount\":6046,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988\",\"name\":\"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-29T15:47:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-29T15:47:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988","datePublished":"1988-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T15:47:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988"},"wordCount":6046,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988","name":"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-29T15:47:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satya-narain-pandey-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-13-january-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satya Narain Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Others on 13 January, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}