Contextual interpretation of "building" preserved allotment jurisdiction despite later removal of the roof.

A structure that qualified as a roofed building when it first became vacant could still be treated as a "building" for allotment under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 even if the roof was removed before the allotment order. Because the definition of "building" is subject to context, and the structure had already fallen vacant as a building, the term could be read in its broader sense to preserve the statutory purpose. The later roofless condition, brought about by the landlord, did not defeat the District Magistrate's allotment jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a structure that was a roofed building when it fell vacant could still be allotted under Section 16(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 after its roof was removed before the allotment order was made.

Analysis: The definition of "building" in Section 3(i) of the Act speaks of a roofed structure, but the definition clause is prefaced by the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Section 16(1) empowers the District Magistrate to make an allotment order in respect of a building that is vacant, has fallen vacant, or is about to fall vacant. The structure had answered the description of a building when it became vacant, and the later removal of the roof was a development brought about by the landlord. In that context, the word "building" could be read in its general sense so that the statutory object is not defeated and a wrongdoer does not benefit from his own act.

Conclusion: The District Magistrate retained jurisdiction to proceed with allotment, and the allotment order was valid notwithstanding the later roofless condition of the structure.

---