2000 AIR SCW 839 ::2000 ALL. L. J. 853 ::2000 SCFBRC 188 ::2000 UJ(SC) 1 648 ::2000 (3) SCC 739 ::2000 All CJ 2 888 ::(2000) 3 JT 177 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : 1998 All LJ 862 : 1998 AIHC 3229)

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. S. Mohd. Quadri, S. N. Phukan , JJ

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (13 of 1972) , S.14— U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules (1972) , R.10(5)(d)— Allotment of premises - Under Rules, unauthorised occupant not entitled to - Respondent found by authorities to be in possession of premises in collusion with the landlord - His claim for allotment cannot be brushed aside on ground of 'unauthorised occupant' as he did not incur disqualification under R. 10(5)(d). There can be no doubt that a person who has occupied a premises without the permission of the landlord is an unauthorised occupant, a trespasser. The rule making authority is presumed to be aware of two categories of the unauthorised occupation of a building: (i) otherwise than with the written consent of the landlord and (ii) otherwise than under an order of allotment or release. But the scheme of R. 10(5)(d) of the Rules suggests that the rule making authority has condoned the authorised occupant so declared under S. 13 of the Act and has taken note of only an authorised occupant of a building without the consent of the landlord. Under that rule it is only when a person has entered into unauthorised occupation of the building or any part thereof without the written consent of the landlord then ordinarily the building shall not be allotted to him. In the instant case, adm....