ANIL KALRA versus J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 401, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 401 
ANILKALRA 
v. 
J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.3763 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 
. [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
A 
B 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
C 
. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - ss. 16(1)(b), 11, 2(2) - Dis-
pute as regards hundred year old building -Application u/s. 
16(1)(b) for release of the building for demolition and recon-
struction before the Competent Authority- Issuance of order 
for release of the building in favour of appellant and co-land-
D 
lords - Thereafter, issuance of Form-C - However, since un-
authorized occupants failed to vacate the building, issuance 
of Form-0 -Application for execution of Form-0 by the ap-
pellant-Al/owed by the Rent Control Officer- However, it is 
alleged that to frustrate the release order, respondent Nos. 1 E 
to 3 offered to give possession of thirteen rooms only, and 
got the eviction proceedings stalled against unauthorized 
occupants - Contempt Petition by appellant before the High 
Court - Contempt Appeal by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - On F 
appeal, held: Respondents failed to show that under what 
authority the building was being occupied by respondent Nos. 
1 to 3 and let out to various occupants in violation of s. 11 -
There is no allotment order issued in favour of any of the 
alleged occupants u/s. 16 - Building is old and covered un-
G 
der sub-section (2) of s. 2 - Considering the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case,
and conduct of respondents whereby 
persons were unauthorisedly inducted by them without any 
allotment order, Competent Authority directed to execute the 
401 
H

402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015]9S.C.R. 
A Form-D - However, since there are several occupants (in-
ducted unauthorised/y without any allotment order), on hu-
manitarian ground they are given three months' time to va-
cate the premises voluntarily, otherwise they would be forc-
B 
ibly dispossessed. 
· Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and others 
1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 223: 1989 Supp (2) SCC 418; Zahurul 
Islam v. Abu/ Ka/am and others 1995 Supp (1) SCC 464; 
Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh (2005) 5 SCC 
C 527; M. Meeramytheen and others v. K. Parameswaran Pillai 
and others (2010) 15 SCC 359; Atma Ram Builders Private 
Limitedv.A.K. Tuliandothers 2011 (6)SCR935:{2011)6 
sec 385 - referred to. 
D 
Case Law Reference 
1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 223 
referred to. 
Para 9 
1995 supp (1) sec 464 
referred to. 
Para 10 
E 
(2005) 5 sec 527 
referred to. 
Para 11 
(2010) 15 sec 359 
referred to. 
Para 12 
2011 (6) SCR 935 . 
referred to. 
Para 13 
F 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 3763 
of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2007 of the 
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, 
G Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Special Appeal No. 923 of 2006. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 5688-5689 of 2007. 
H 
Pradeep Kant, Divyanshu Sahay, Kamini Jaiswal for the
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 
403 
Appellant. 
A 
Gaurav Bhatia, AAG, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adarsh 
Upadhyay, G. K. Goswami, Abhishek Chaudhary, Gunnam 
Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. The dispute in the present 
matter pertains to a hundred year old building, which is covered 
under Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short UP Act 13 of 1972"). C 
Section 13 of said Act placed restriction on landlord, tenant 
and also on any other person from occupying the building in 
any capacity, without there being an order of release in favour 
of landlord, or order of allotment in case of tenant. The building D 
in question is known as 7, Dalibagh situated in Lucknow. 
Originally said property was owned by a Barrister Mohammad 
Wasim and on his migration to Pakistan, vested with the 
Custodian of Evacuee Property, and thereafter settled in favour 
of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das, a displaced person. But it E 
appears that physical possession could not be delivered to 
the allottee as the building was in occupation of several tenants. 
It is pleaded that the appellantAnil Kalra, along with his brother, 
sister and two others, has stepped into the shoes of the 
landlords through Dr. Mulk Raj, Dwarika Das and Banarasi 
F 
Das, heirs of Rai Bahadur Lakshman Das by way of sale deeds 
executed in the years 1982-1983. It is alleged by the appellant 
that after
the tenants vacated the premises, an application was 
moved under Section 16( 1 )(b) of UP Act 13 of 1972 for release 
of the building for demolition and reconstruction before the G 
Competent Authority (authorized Additional District 
Magistrate). 
2. The Competent Authority called for a report from Rent 
Control Inspector, who inspected the spot and reported on 
H
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
14.11.1984 that the Office of Cane Commissioner (tenant on 
the part of the building) was in the midst of vacating the same. 
He further reported that as per information received, 
Respondent No. 2 Mrigendra Pandey and Respondent No. 3 
Nripendra Pandey (both sons of Dr. J.D. Pandey), under the 
B banner of M/s. Swargiya Sanjay Gandhi Sahkari Avas Samiti 
Ltd,, after breaking open the locks, had unauthorizedly 
occupied the building. It was further reported by the Rent 
Control Inspector that the Deputy Cane Commissioner had 
apprehended that the part vacated by him was also likely to 
C be occupied by said society, and a First Information Report 
was lodged to that effect and the District Magistrate, Lucknow, 
was also informed about it. With the above information, the 
Rent Control Inspector recommended that deemed vacancy 
D be declared in respect of the building under Section 12(1 )(b) 
of UP Act 13 of 1972, and further reported that there was a 
case in favour of th8 landlord-appellant for getting released 
the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. 
· (Co-landlords also joined Anil Kalra by moving separate 
E application before the Competent Authority (Additional District 
Magistrate, City, Lucknow). On perusal of the report of the 
Rent Control Inspector and after inviting objections of 
concerned parties, vacancy was declared. Thereafter, vide 
· order dated 30.12.1986 (on application dated
25.2.1986), the 
F Competent Authority issued the order for release of the building 
under Section 16( 1 )(b) of UP Act 13 of 1972 in favour of the 
appellant and co-landlords. When after issuance of Form-C 
unauthorized occupants failed to vacate the building, Form-D 
was issued. 
G 
3. The unauthorized occupants filed a review petition be-
fore the Competent Authority (Additional District Magistrate, 
City), but the same was dismissed with the finding that the 
occupants were transferees from Swargiya Sanjay Gandhi 
H SahkariAvas Samiti Ltd., which has no title or authority to oc-
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 
405 
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
cupy the building. On this a Rent Revision was filed by re-
A 
spondent Nos. 1 to 3 (Dr. J.D. Pandey and his two sons 
Mrigendra Pandey and Nripendra Pandey, both advocates). 
The revision was decided by V Additional District Judge, 
Lucknow, vide order dated 28.10.1991, in favour of said re-
spondents. The appellant and co-landlords filed the Writ Peti-
B 
tion No. 183 (R/C) of 1991 before the High Court of Judica-
ture at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, challenging the order 
passed by the revisional court. After hearing the parties, the 
writ petition was allowed by the High Court, vide order dated 
26.5.1999 with the direction that the proceedings for delivery C 
of possession to the landlord shall be re-initiated from the stage 
they were stayed. The application for recall, filed by respon-
dent Nos. 1 to 3, was dismissed on 4.7.2002. That round of 
litigation attained finality with the dismissal of Speeial Leave D 
Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of 2002 on 10.12.2002, by this 
Court. 
4. In the above circumstances, the appellant moved ap-
plication for execution of Form-D before the Rent Control Of-
ficer (Additional District Magistrate, City, East, Lucknow), and 
E 
on 22.2,2003 said authority issued direction for execution of 
Form-D. It is alleged by the appellant that to frustrate the re-
lease order, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 offered to g.ive posses-
sion of thirteen rooms only, and got the eviction proceedings
F 
stalled against unauthorized occupants. This gave cause to 
the appellant to file Contempt Petition No. 265 of 2003 before 
the High Court. In said proceeding also respondent Nos. 1 to 
3 expressed willingness to hand over possession of thirteen 
rooms only and not the building. The single Judge, hearing G 
the contempt petition, directed the Rent Control Officer (Addi-
tional District Magistrate, City) to comply the order of the High 
Court, passed in the writ petition, against which Special Leave 
Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of2002 had been dismissed. Re-
spondent Nos. 1to3 filed Contempt Appeal No. 51 of 2006 H
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
against the interim order dated 1.12.2006, passed by the 
Judge hearing the contempt petition. The contempt appeal 
was dismissed as not maintainable. Thereafter, the respon-
dents filed Special Appeal (Intra CourtAppeal) No. 923 of2006 
before the High Court. The appellant raised ~preliminary ob-
s jection that no Special Appeal is maintainable against the or-
der of the Judge hearing the contempt petition. However, the 
High Court rejected the preliminary objection. Hence, this 
appeal through special leave, before us. Connected Civil 
Appeal Nos. 5688-89 of 2007 are filed by respondent Nos. 1 
C to 3 of the Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2007 against the judgment 
and orders dated 1.12.2006 and 8.12.2006, passed by the 
High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 265 of 2006 
and ContemptAppeal No. 51 of2006. 
D 
5. Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel for the ap-
pellant, submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 cannot be al-
lowed to frustrate the orders of the court passed in the first 
round of litigation, which attained finality with the dismissal of 
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of 2002. On the 
E other hand, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the 
respondents and affected parties, submitted that the landlords 
are not entitled to the release of more than thirteen rooms va-
cated by the Cane Commissioner. 
F 
6. However, the respondents failed to show that underwhat 
authority the building was being
occupied by respondent Nos. 
1 to 3 and let out to various occupants in violation of Section 
11 of the UP Act 13 of 1972. Section 11 reads as under: -
G 
"11. Prohibition of letting without allotment order. -
Save as hereinafter provided, no person shall let any build-
ing except in pursuance of an allotment order issued un-
der Section 16." 
H 
7. There is no allotment order issued in favour of any of
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 
407 
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
the alleged occupants under Section 16 of the UP Act 13 of A 
1972. It is not in dispute that the building is old and covered 
under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban 
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972, 
which was initially applicable to ten years old buildings as on 
15.7.1972. By UP Act 28of1976 words "ten years" were sub-
B 
stituted by "twenty years", and by UP Act No. 11 of 1988 "twenty 
years" were substituted with "forty years". As such, in any case 
the building was covered under the Act and not exempted un-
der any of the clauses mentioned in Section 2 of the UP Act 
No. 13of1972. 
C 
8. The expression "District Magistrate" is defined in clause 
(c) of Section 3 and includes an officer authorized by the Dis-
trict Magistrate to exercise, perform and discharge all or any 
of his powers, functions and duties under the Act. Clause (b) 
D 
of sub-Section (1) of Section 12 of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 
provides that a landlord or a tenant of a building shall be 
deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof 
if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a 
member of his family. Section 13 of the Act provides that where 
E 
a landlord or tenant ceases to occupy a building or part thereof, 
no person shall occupy it in any capacity on his behalf of other-
wise than under an order of allotment or release under Sec-
tion 16. Clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 16 provides 
F 
that the District Magistrate may by an order release the whole 
or any part of the vacant building in favour of the landlord. 
9. In Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram and 
others1, this Court, commenting on the conduct of the occu-
pants on behalf of the firm, in a case under Haryana Urban G 
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, has observed as un-
der: -
1 1989 supp (2) sec 418 
H
408 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
"5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the question that 
requires consideration is how will this order of eviction 
passed by the High Court and confirmed by this Court by 
dismissing the special leave petition on the terms men-
tioned hereinbefore on 24-8-1987 is to be enforced or 
implemented? In our opinion, the said order must be imple-
mented and cannot be allowed to be defeated by the du-
bious methods adopted by the partners of the said firm of 
Gan pat Ram Rajkumar. The whole conduct betrays a cal-
culated attempt to defeat the order of this Court and to 
mislead this Court. If that is the position, in our opinion, 
parties cannot be allowed to do so arid get away by mis-
leading this Court ........... " 
10. In Zahurul Islam v. Abu/ Ka/am and others2, after a 
D decree of eviction passed by the Competent Court, a miscel-
laneous judicial case was filed before the Second Court of the 
Assistant District Judge, Alipore, West Bengal on the basis of 
forged rent receipts to get the execution proceedings stalled. 
Commenting on the conduct of the tenant, in said case this 
E 
Court made following observations: -
F 
G 
"11. After considering the respective contentions of the 
learned counsel forthe parties and the affidavits filed by 
Respondent 6, Mis Hind Barrel Co. and Respondents 13 
to 15, it appears to us that in the facts and circumstances 
of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a direction from 
this
Court that the decree should be executed immedi-
ately by the executing court and delivery of the entirety of 
the suit premises covered by the decree under execution, 
should be delivered to the decree-holder, the petitioner, 
Zahurul Islam, by the executing court by evicting Respon-
dent 1, Abu I Kalam and the other respondents including 
Respondents 6 and 13 to 15 and any other person in pos-
H , 1995 Supp (1) sec 464
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 
409 
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
session of any portion of the disputed premises, if neces-
A 
sary, with the police help ................ " 
11. In Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh3, in 
a case initiated under Delhi Rent Control Act challenging evic-
tion decree, this Court expressed its concern in following words: 
B 
"13. The history of this litigation shows nothing but cuss-
edness and lack of bona tides on the part of the respon-
dent. Apart from his tenacity and determination to prevent c 
the appellants from enjoying the fruits of the decree, there 
appears to be nothing commendable in the case. Even 
before us the same arguments of fraud, and that the ap-
pellants were not legally owners of the suit property, were 
1 
pleaded. 
D' 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
18. Considering that the respondent has deliberately 
delayed the execution, the executing court shall dispose 
of the execution proceedings with utmost dispatch." 
E 
12. In M. Meeramytheen and others v. K. 
Parameswaran Pillai and others4 , considering the delay 
made by tenants in vacating the premises after orders passed 
under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, 
F 
by getting inducted sub-tenant, this Court issued following di-
rections: -
"14. The executing court will see that delivery of posses-
sion is effected within a period of fifteen days from the G 
date of filing of the execution petition or the application 
aforementioned. In case for delivery of
possession any 
' (2005) 5 sec 527 
• (201 o) 15 sec 359 
H
410 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by 
the Superintendent of Police within forty-eight hours from 
the date requisition is received therefor. It is also directed 
that in case anybody else, other than the tenants, is found 
in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the 
premises in question." 
13. In Atma Ram Builders Private Limitedv. A.K. Tuli 
and others5, deprecating the conduct of the tenant after the 
first round of litigation was over by getting inducted another 
C person, this Court expressed its anguish as under: -
"4. It is deeply regrettable that in our country often litiga-
tions between the landlord and the tenant are fought up to 
the stage of the Supreme Court and when the tenant loses 
o 
in this Court then he starts a second innings through some-
one claiming to be a co-tenant or as a sub-tenant or in 
some other capacity and in the second round of litigation 
the matter remains pending for years and the landlord can-
not get possession despite the order of this Court. The 
E 
time has come that this malpractice must now be stopped 
effectively." 
14. In view of law laid down by this Court, as above, and 
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, 
F 
and conduct of respondents whereby persons in large num-
ber inducted unauthorisedly by them without any allotment or-
der, Civil Appeal No 3763 of 2007, filed by the landlord, de-
serves to be allowed, and Civil
Appeal Nos. 5688-89 of2007, 
filed by the respondents (contemnors before the single Judge 
G of the High Court) are liable to be dismissed. We order ac-
cordingly. We further direct the Competent Authority (Addi-
tional District Magistrate, City, East, Lucknow) to execute the 
Form-D. However, keeping in mind that there are several oc-
H 
'(2011) 6 sec 385
ANIL KALRA v. J.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS 
411 
[PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.] 
cupants (inducted unauthorisedlywithout any allotment order), 
A 
on humanitarian ground they are allowed three months' time 
from today to vacate the premises voluntarily, whereafter they 
or anyone occupying in their place along with respondent Nos. 
1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No. 3763 of 2007, shall be forcibly dis-
possessed within 48 hours in compliance of this order, as di-
B 
rected above. The District Magistrate and the Senior Super-
intendent of Police, Lucknow, are directed to provide every 
assistance in execution of the order of release, affirmed by 
tbe High Court in Writ Petition (R/C) No. 183 of 1991 on 
26.5.1999. Needless to say that this Court has already dis-
C 
missed Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 24659-60 of 2002 on 
10.12.2002, challenging the order passed in the writ petition 
by the High Court. We also clarify that the landlords are not 
allowed to let out the released building (in the existing condi-
0 
tion), and they shall demolish the building for reconstruction 
for which the building has been released by the authority con-
cerned. 
15. With the directions, as above, Civil Appeal No. 3763 
of 2007 is allowed and Civil Appeal Nos. 5688-89 of 2007 E 
stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 
NidhiJain 
Appeals disposed of.