MOHD. NAZIR versus BECHAND PRASAD AND ORS.

MOHD. NAZIR versus BECHAND PRASAD AND ORS.

The District Magistrate has the authority under Section 16(4) to restore and maintain the allottee's possession of premises and pass consequential and incidental orders. The High Court erred by restricting this power and by applying the doctrine of res judicata to bar such action.

Parties
Appellant: Mohd. Nazir; Respondent No. 1: Bechand Prasad; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2; Respondent No. 3: Respondent No. 3
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal Against Allahabad High Court Judgment in W.p. No. 35008 of 1994
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Restoration of Possession, Powers Under U.p. Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Role of District Magistrate, Effect of Res Judicata Doctrine
Rent and Eviction Law Restoration of Possession Powers Under U.p. Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 Role of District Magistrate Effect of Res Judicata Doctrine

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Nazir

Appellant

Bechand Prasad

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 3

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal Against Allahabad High Court Judgment in W.p. No. 35008 of 1994

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Magistrate has power under Section 16(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to restore possession to the allottee who was ousted after being put in possession
  2. 2 Whether the view of the High Court that the District Magistrate had no power to reinstate the allottee and that the doctrine of res judicata applied was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The District Magistrate has the authority under Section 16(4) to restore and maintain the allottee's possession of premises and pass consequential and incidental orders. The High Court erred by restricting this power and by applying the doctrine of res judicata to bar such action.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court set aside
  • Order of the District Magistrate restored requiring appellant to be put in possession of the building forthwith by evicting the unauthorised occupants/contestants