1986 (12) TMI 368 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 24-B and Section 24-C of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to buildings within the cantonment area.
2. Entitlement of the appellant to immediate possession under Section 24-B of the Act despite being in partial occupation of the building.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Sections 24-B and 24-C to Cantonment Buildings
The appellant, a government servant, was ordered to vacate his government-allotted quarter and sought to reclaim possession of the first floor of his house, which was rented out. The High Court initially ruled that the U.P. Urban Buildings Act did not apply to buildings within the cantonment area at the time the application was filed. However, subsequent notifications extended the Act to cantonment areas. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Chapter IV-A, including Sections 24-B and 24-C, were applicable to the building in question, thereby justifying the appellant's application under Section 24-C.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Immediate Possession
The appellant argued that he was entitled to reclaim the rented portion of his house under Section 24-B, which allows landlords to recover possession if they are required to vacate government accommodation. The tenant contended that the appellant was already in occupation of the ground floor and thus did not qualify for relief under Section 24-B. The High Court sided with the tenant, stating that the appellant had other residential accommodation and could not invoke the urgency provisions of Section 24-B.

The Supreme Court examined whether the ground floor and first floor constituted separate dwelling units. It noted that the two portions had common facilities but could be used independently. The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to use the urgency provisions of Section 24-B and should seek eviction under other provisions of the Act. The decision of the High Court was affirmed, allowing the appellant to make arrangements to separate the two units if desired.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with the observation that the appellant could seek eviction through other legal provisions if necessary. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.