MOHD. INAM versus SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.

MOHD. INAM versus SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.

The vacancy notification could be challenged along with the final order in revision under Section 18 (per Achal Misra); the inspection report showed occupants were family members of the tenant, so Section 12(1)(b) did not apply; the District Judge was justified in exercising revisional power to set aside the vacancy and final orders because the Rent Controller's finding was contrary to binding precedent and on misreading of evidence; the High Court erred in intervening under Article 227 and converting supervisory jurisdiction into appellate review.

Parties
Appellant: Mohd. Inam; Respondents: Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Order Allowing Writ Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 18, Challenge to Vacancy Notification Under Section 16/12(1)(b), Interpretation of 'allowed to Be Occupied' in Section 12(1)(b), Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227
U.p. Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 Rent Control and Eviction Constitutional Law (article 227) Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 18 Challenge to Vacancy Notification Under Section 16/12(1)(b) Interpretation of 'allowed to Be Occupied' in Section 12(1)(b) Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Inam

Appellant

Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court From High Court Order Allowing Writ Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an order notifying vacancy can be challenged along with the final order in a revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972
  2. 2 Whether clause (b) of Section 12(1) of the U.P. Act, 1972 is attracted where persons residing are members of the tenant's family
  3. 3 Whether the District Judge was justified in exercising revisional power to set aside the vacancy and final orders

Ratio Decidendi

The vacancy notification could be challenged along with the final order in revision under Section 18 (per Achal Misra); the inspection report showed occupants were family members of the tenant, so Section 12(1)(b) did not apply; the District Judge was justified in exercising revisional power to set aside the vacancy and final orders because the Rent Controller's finding was contrary to binding precedent and on misreading of evidence; the High Court erred in intervening under Article 227 and converting supervisory jurisdiction into appellate review.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order dated 26.10.2017 quashed and set aside
  • No order as to costs