9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the term "building" u/s 3(i) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 and the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate u/s 16(1) for passing allotment orders.
Summary: The case revolved around a building in Meerut City where the roof was dismantled after the tenant vacated, leading to a dispute regarding the definition of a "building" under the Act. The District Magistrate passed an allotment order despite the structure being roofless at that time. The High Court set aside the allotment order, stating it can only be made in respect of a building. The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of "building" and the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under the Act. The Act defines "building" as a roofed structure, which the structure in question ceased to be after the roof was removed by the owner. The Court considered the maxim "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) and the provisions of the Act regarding allotment orders. The Court noted that the District Magistrate's jurisdiction is in respect of a building that is vacant or has fallen vacant, even if it became roofless subsequently. It emphasized the flexibility in interpreting the term "building" and cited legal dictionaries to support the notion that a building can exist without a roof in certain circumstances. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It directed the appellant to pay a higher rent for the building due to its location and the low rent being paid currently.
|
