Bans Bahadur Singh v. IInd Addl. District Judge — 1992 DIGILAW 1602 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : D.S. SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri S. N Singh, learned counsel sed appearing for the Petitioner and Sri Shyam Narayan, learned Counsel representing the contesting Respondent No. 3. 2. Orders dated 12th December, 1983 and 5th November, 1985. passed by the Prescribed Authority, the Respondent No. 2, and the II Additional District Judge, Ballia, the Respondent No. 1, respectively in proceedings u/s 16(1)(b) and 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act, are under challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. By the order dated 12th December, 1983 the Prescribed Authority released the disputed building in favour of the contesting Respondent Educational Society and directed issuance of the order of eviction of the Petitioner and one Tej Bahadur Singh, holding them to be unauthorised occupant of the premises, in Form-D envisaged in Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, hereinafter called the Rules. 4. The Petitioner challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority in revision u/s 18 of the Act. The revisional Court has, by means of the order dated 5th November, 1985, confirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority. 5. The order of the Prescribed Authority is founded on the finding that the Petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the building in dispute; that the building in question belongs to the contesting Respondent Educational Society, and that the building was not amenable to the provisions of the Act in as much as it came within the purview of the exemption clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act. 6. The revisional Court has affirmed the finding that the Petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the building; and that the building belongs to the contesting Respondent Educational Society. However, it has not agreed with the finding of the Prescribed Authority that the building in question is exempt from the provisions of the Act. 7. Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently urges that the finding of the courts below that the building belongs to the contesting Respondent Educational Society is erroneous. The submission of the learned Counsel does not deserve any consideration and has got to be rejected for two reasons. 7. Sri S. N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, vehemently urges that the finding of the courts below that the building belongs to the contesting Respondent Educational Society is erroneous. The submission of the learned Counsel does not deserve any consideration and has got to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, the question as to whether the contesting Respondent Educational Society is owner of the building or not is basically a question of fact which cannot be re-examined by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, the finding of the ownership of the building of the contesting Respondent Educational Society is based on the documentary evidence, namely gift deed in its favour which has not been shown to have been adjudged invalid by any competent Court of law. 8. Second submission of Sri Singh is that the revisional Court went wrong in holding the building to be amenable to the provisions of the Act. This submission of Sri Singh also has no force. The material before the courts below goes to show that the building in question was not constructed by the contesting Respondent Educational Society. It is only holding it on transfer by virtue of gift-deed executed in its favour. 9. Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act is attracted to a building on the existence of two basic conditions, namely, the construction and holding thereof by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act or by a Co-operative Society, company or firm solely for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servants, whether on rent or free of rent, or as a guest house, by whatever name called, for the occupation of persons having dealing with it in the ordinary' course of business. 'Building' and 'holding' of building for the specified purpose are the necessary ingredients for the applicability of the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act. 10. In the instant case, one of the basic ingredients, namely, the factum of building the building in dispute by the contesting Respondent Educational Society is, admittedly, missing. In this view of the matter, the exemption Conceived of by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act is not available to the building in dispute. 10. In the instant case, one of the basic ingredients, namely, the factum of building the building in dispute by the contesting Respondent Educational Society is, admittedly, missing. In this view of the matter, the exemption Conceived of by clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act is not available to the building in dispute. The view of the revisional authority is in conformity with this legal position and is not open to any challenge. 11. There is yet another important factor against the Petitioner. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that as long back as in December, 1978 the Petitioner had been held to be an unauthorised occupant of the building in dispute during the proceedings for allotment in favour of one Sri Satya Deo Vishwakarama. The order holding the Petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant of the building in dispute was challenged in revision and affirmed. The Petitioner acquiesced to the declaration of his position as an unauthorised occupant of the building in dispute. He has been again declared to be an unauthorised and occupant of the building. The Petitioner is a confirmed unauthorised occupant of the building in dispute. Interference by this Court at the behest of a Petitioner, who is unquestionably an unauthorised occupant, will encourage disobedience of law and result in manifest injustice. Special and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be invoked, to help a law-breaker like the Petitioner. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is clearly of the opinion that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and declines to do so. 13. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order/orders shall stand discharged. There will be no order as to costs.