TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an applicant for allotment under the deemed vacancy provisions was entitled to be heard before rejection of the application and whether the ex parte rejection was valid; (ii) whether the earlier rejection of the allotment application operated as res judicata against the subsequent proceedings; (iii) whether the dispute concerning deemed vacancy and the residential nature of the premises required remand for evidence.
Issue (i): whether an applicant for allotment under the deemed vacancy provisions was entitled to be heard before rejection of the application and whether the ex parte rejection was valid.
Analysis: The scheme of Section 16 and Section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, read with the vacancy and inspection procedure, showed that the allotment applicant was not a stranger to the proceedings. The report of the Inspector was only to assist the authority and was not conclusive. The principles of natural justice, especially audi alteram partem, applied because rejection of the application entailed civil consequences. The absence of a statutory hearing requirement did not exclude fairness where the statutory scheme did not expressly or by necessary implication bar it.
Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to notice and hearing before rejection, and the ex parte order rejecting the allotment application was invalid.
Issue (ii): whether the earlier rejection of the allotment application operated as res judicata against the subsequent proceedings.
Analysis: Res judicata requires a prior final decision on merits by a competent authority after the party sought to be bound has had an opportunity of being heard. The earlier order had been made behind the applicant's back and did not amount to an adjudication on merits. As there was no real opportunity of contest and no final determination of the controversy, the earlier order could not bar the later proceedings.
Conclusion: The earlier rejection did not operate as res judicata, and the subsequent application was maintainable.
Issue (iii): whether the dispute concerning deemed vacancy and the residential nature of the premises required remand for evidence.
Analysis: The question whether the tenant had built or acquired a residential building so as to attract deemed vacancy depended on facts such as ownership, family relationship, and the dominant use of the premises. On the record before the Court, there was insufficient evidence to finally decide these factual controversies. The Court therefore held that the matter should go back for fresh enquiry and evidence. Section 14 was held inapplicable to defeat the deemed vacancy claim at this stage.
Conclusion: The factual issues had to be decided afresh on evidence, and remand was necessary.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned orders were quashed, and the matter was sent back for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory allotment proceeding has civil consequences and the governing enactment does not clearly exclude it, the person applying for allotment must be given a hearing before rejection; an ex parte order passed without such opportunity is invalid and cannot support res judicata.
TaxTMI 
