Landlord's review right under the U.P. rent law survives absence of actual possession; lawful occupation applies only to others.

Section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 distinguishes between a landlord and any other person claiming lawful occupation. The requirement of lawful occupation applies only to the latter category, not to the landlord. The seven-day proviso is directed to applications by persons in lawful occupation and cannot be read to extinguish the landlord's substantive right to seek review absent clear legislative intent. Accordingly, a landlord need not have been in actual physical possession to maintain a review application under section 16(5), and the review was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a landlord who was not in actual physical possession at the time of an allotment or release order could maintain a review application under section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972.

Analysis: Section 16(5)(a) contemplates two distinct categories, namely, the landlord and any other person claiming to be a lawful occupant. The requirement of lawful occupation applies only to the latter category and not to the landlord. The proviso prescribing a seven-day limit is directed to applications by persons in lawful occupation and cannot be read to take away the landlord's substantive right to seek review. A proviso cannot be construed to defeat a right conferred by the main provision unless the legislative intention is clear.

Conclusion: A landlord need not have been in actual physical possession to invoke review under section 16(5), and the review application was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed because the statutory scheme permitted the landlord to seek review notwithstanding the absence of actual occupation, and the dismissal of the special leave petition followed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a provision separately refers to the landlord and to any other person claiming lawful occupation, the occupation requirement attaches only to the latter, and a proviso cannot be used to curtail the landlord's substantive statutory right absent clear legislative intent.

---