Legal Analysis in Revision of Vacancy Declaration

The court case delves into the nuanced legal analysis undertaken in the revision of a vacancy declaration under the Rent Control Act. The court’s scrutiny of statutory provisions and precedents exemplifies the importance of upholding legal principles in such matters. This case sets a crucial precedent in determining the court’s jurisdiction and the scope of revisional power in addressing discrepancies in occupancy declarations.

Facts

The original tenant filed objections to the inspection report stating that he and his family were the only occupants in the premises.
The Rent Control Inspector’s report indicated that there were multiple families living in the premises, not all of whom were related to the tenant.
Based on the report, the Rent Control Inspector declared the premises vacant on 4.6.2003.
The appellant and Shabbir Ahmed filed a Writ Petition challenging the declaration of vacancy.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the landlords, leading to the current appeal.
The facts of the case revolve around the original tenant, Rashid Ahmed, who passed away leaving his son, the present appellant, as the legal heir.
The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer found discrepancies in the occupancy of the premises after Rashid Ahmed’s death.
The respondents, who were the landlords, alleged that the property had been sub-let to individuals not related to the tenant.
This ultimately resulted in the declaration of the suit premises as ‘vacant’ in favor of the landlords by the final order under the U.P. Act, 1972.
The respondents did not challenge the vacancy order and the order dated 23.8.2006 passed by the High Court.
The District Judge allowed the revision and set aside the vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 and the final order dated 31.5.2007.
The High Court noted that the judgment and order dated 23.8.2006 had not been challenged by the respondents.
The High Court granted liberty to challenge the order dated 4.6.2003 after the final order of release/allotment was passed.

Also Read: Presumption of Genuine Endorsements in Cheque Case

Analysis

The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot act as an appellate court.
The High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact by the first appellate authority unless there is illegality or impropriety.
The High Court can set aside impugned orders if found to be not legal or proper under Rent Control Acts.
Revisional power is limited and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact.
The High Court should keep subordinate tribunals within their authority and ensure compliance with the law.
Revisional powers can only be used if the impugned order violates a statutory provision or suffers from misreading of evidence.
Liberty to challenge the vacancy order can be granted after the final order is passed under the relevant Act.
An order notifying vacancy is a step towards passing the final order and can be challenged accordingly.
The High Court’s interference in revision should be based on violation of law or binding precedents or misreading of evidence.
In the absence of specific provisions, challenges against interim orders can be made in proceedings leading to final orders.
An order notifying a vacancy, which leads to the final order of allotment, can be challenged in a proceeding taken to challenge the final order.
The revisional power does not allow the High Court to interfere with the factual findings of the first appellate court or authority.
The vacancy declaration cannot be made if a person who is not a family member is residing on the premises along with the family members of the original tenant.
The interpretation of the words ‘allowed to be occupied’ as per Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972 is crucial in determining vacancy.
Preliminary steps like the order declaring a vacancy can be challenged even in a revision against the final allotment order.
The failure to challenge the notifying vacancy order immediately does not result in the loss of the right to challenge it later in a revision against the final order of allotment.
Orders declaring a vacancy are significant in the process leading up to the final allotment order and can be challenged accordingly.
The power to rescind a final order under this sub-section does not include the power to pass an allotment order in favor of a different person than the original allottee.
When an order under Section 16 or Section 19 is rescinded, the District Magistrate must place the parties back in their original positions before the order was passed.
Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972 states that no appeal lies from an order under Section 16 or Section 19, but a person aggrieved by a final order can file a revision with the District Judge within fifteen days of the order.
Grounds for filing a revision include the District Magistrate exercising jurisdiction not vested in him by law, failing to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acting illegally or with material irregularity.
The revising authority can confirm, rescind, or remand the final order and may stay the operation of the order pending the revision.
Exercise of jurisdiction by the High court under Article 227 was unwarranted and unjustified.