Supreme Court of India
DR. (SMT.) KESHAV DEVIversusSHRI GIRDHARI LAL PAHWA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1986 INSC 226
- Decided
- 5 November 1986
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SABYASACHI MUKHERJI
Holding
The allotment order dated 4 January 1978 was illegal for violating the mandatory notice requirement of s.17(2) and Rule 9(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
Mauji Ram Gupta owned a two‑storey house; the ground floor was occupied by him and the first floor became vacant. He applied for release of the vacant floor under s.16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, but the application was rejected and the floor was allotted to various applicants, eventually to the appellant, Dr. (Smt.) Keshav Devi, by an order dated 4 January 1978. In the meantime Gupta sold the house to G.L. Pahwa, who occupied the ground floor and became the landlord. The allotment order was made without serving the mandatory notice required by Rule 9(3) and without giving the landlord the right under s.17(2) to nominate a tenant of his choice. The Additional District Magistrate later set aside the order, the High Court upheld that decision and directed a fresh consideration after notice. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which held that the allotment order was illegal for non‑compliance with the mandatory provisions and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether an allotment order made under s.16(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act is void if the landlord, who occupies part of the building, is not given notice as required by Rule 9(3) and s.17(2).
- Whether the High Court was correct in directing the Additional District Magistrate to reconsider the allotment after giving notice to the landlord.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 16(1)(a), s. 16(1)(b), s. 16(5), s. 17(2)
- U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972s. Rule 9(3)
Subjects
allotment ordernotice requirementlandlord rightsSection 17(2)U.P. Urban Buildings Actprocedural compliancetenancyvacancy
Judgment
A DR. (SMT.) KESHAV DEVI
v.
SHRI GIRDHARI LAL PAHWA & ORS.
NOVEMBER 5, 1986
B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972/U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and '>t,
Eviction) Rules, 1972:
C . Sections 16(/)(a) & 17(2)/Rule 19. Buildings-Part of in occupa- j
lion of landlord for residential purpose-Allotment of any other part of-../'\,_
building to be made in favour of person nominated by landlord.
One Mauji Ram Gupta was the owner of a house consisting of
ground floor and first floor. When the vacancy in the first floor arose,
D the landlord applied for release of the premises u/s.16 of the U.P.
Urban Build;ngs (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Respondent No.4, the Additional District Magistrate, rejected the claim
of the landlord and allotted the first floor to the appellant. Thereafter,
Respondent No. I purchased the disputed house on 18. 7. 77 and oc-
cupied the ground floor. The aforesaid order of allotment was set aside
E on 18.8. 77 hy the District Judge with a direction to respondent No. 4 to
reconsider the applications made for allotment of the premises in ac-
cordance with law.
Respondent No. 4 reconsidered the applications and by his order
dated 4.1. 78, again allotted the premises to the appellant after rejeding
F the claims of other applicants. However, in a review petition filed hy
respondent No. I-landlord, Respondent No. 4 set aside the aforesaid
order of allotment by his order dated 14.12.81 on the ground that since
the premises in dispute was a part of the landlord's building which he
was occupying, it was mandatory under s.17(2) of the Act that notice
should have heen issued to the landlord and since no notice had ltleen
G issued to the landlord, the order was vitiated.
Aggrieved by the order of Respondent No. 4 the appellant filed a
revision application before the District Judge. The District Judge set
aside the order dated i4.12.81 passed by Respondent No. 4 but the same
was restored by the High Court in a writ petition filed by respondent ·--t
H no. I. The High Court also directed respondent no. 4 to consider the
126
KESHAV DEVI v. G.L. PAHWA 127
applications for allotment after giving notice to the landlord-respondent A
no. I.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD: I. ·The allotment order dated 4.1. 78 issued in appellant's
favour was rendered illegal for the non-compliance of the mandatory B
.. ,. provisions of sec.17(2) of the Act. In that view even if there was any
procedural defect in entertaining the review application, it would not he
proper and desirable to interfere with the order of the Addi. District
Magistrate, more so, when the High Court has already upheld that
1 ~ order. [135C] •
c
2.1 When a building or a part of a building falls vacant or is likely
to fall vacant, the District Magistrate under s.16(1) of the Act has
jurisdiction to issue allotment order requiring the landlord to let the
building or part thereof to the person specified in the order. The land-
lord may apply to the District Magistrate for release of the whole or any
part of such building under s.16(i)(b) of the Act. If the release applica- D
tion is allowed, the landlord is permitted to occupy the building or part
thereof as the case inay he. But if release application is dismissed the
District Magistrate is empowered to issue allotment order in favour of
an applicant, and in pursuance thereof the allottee is entitled to take
possession. [131G-H] .
E
2.2. Before applications for allotment are considered by the Dis-
trict Magistrate, it is mandatory for him to serve notice of the vacancy
on the landlord informing him the date on which the allotment is to he
considered as prescribed by Rule 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regu-
lation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. The object and
.., purpose of the notice to the landlord regarding the date fixed for allot- F·
ment proceedings is to enable him to me his objections, if any, to the
allotment proceedings or to make application for release of the premises
as contemplated by s.16( I)(a) of the Act or to nominate a tenant of his
choice if he himself is in· occupation of a portion of the building. An
allotment order m'!de without giving notice to the landlord as required
hy Rlile 9(3) woold he rendered illegal. [131H-132A, C-D] G
2.3. Section 17(2) of the Act lays down that where a part of a
building is in occupation of landlord for a residential purpose, the
allotment of any other part thereof under s.16(l)(a) shall be made in
favour of a person nominated by the landlord .. This provision ·safe-
guards interest of the landlord to have a tenant of his choice if he is H
I
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
occupying a portion of the building. The legislature euacted sec.17(2)
A
with a view to ensure peaceful living to a landlord and for that purpose,
it permitted the landlord to have a tenant of his choice. The landlord's
valuable right cannot be taken away by the District MagNrate while exer-
cising his powers of allotment 1mder sec.16(l)(a) oftbe Act. [132H-133B]
B In the instant case, no notice of the allotment proceedings was
issued to G.L. Pahwa, respondent no. 1, although the appellant as well ).c
as the Addi. District Magistrate both knew that G.L. Pahwa had step-
ped in the shoes of landlord and that he was occupying ground floor of
the building. The allotment order was made in appellant's favour 011 ~
4.1. 78, but the landlord, though residing in a part of the building was \
C denied opportunity of nominating a tenant of his choice as contemplated
by sec.17(2) of the Act. In these circumstances there can be no doubt
that the order of the Addi. District Magistrate alloting the premises to )..
the appellant was completely without jurisdiction and against the plain
terms oi sec.17(2) of the Act. [13:;G-134A]
D Yoginder Tiwari v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors., [1984] 2
SCC 728 & Babu Singh Chauhan v. Rajkumar Jain & Ors., [1982] 3
SCR 114, relied upon.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 157
of 1985
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 20. l.1984 of the Allahabad
High Court in W.P. No. 1404 of 1983.
V.M. Tarku11de a11d Shakeel Ahmed Syed for the Appellant.
F S.C. Maheshwari, R.D. Upadhyay and Manoj Saxena for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.
1
SINGH, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
G judgment of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) dt.
January 20, 1984 setting aside order of the Addi. District Judge,
Lucknow dt. January 18, 1983 and quashing the allotment order made
in appellant's favour and directing the Addi. District Magistrate (Civil
Supplies), Lucknow to reconsider the applications made for allotment
of the premises in dispute after giving notice to the respondent•
H landlord.
KESHAV DEVI v. G.L. PAHWA [SINGH, J.] 129
The dispute relates to !st floor of House No. 109/16 situate in A
Model House Colony, Aminabad, Lucknow. Mauji Ram Gupta the
owner of the house was residing in the ground floor of the house while
the !st floor was let out to a tenant. Vacancy in the first floor arose,
several persons including the appellant, H.C. Ghildiyal and Ramakant
Srivastava made applications for allotment of the same. Mauji Ram
Gupta, the landlord also made an application for the release of the B
premises to him under sec. 16 of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act). The Addi. District Magistrate, respondent No. 4 by his
, Order dt. 25.2.76 rejected Mauji Ram Gupta's applicatio11 and allot-
/ "'\..:ted the premises to H. C. Ghildiyal, but he did not occupy the pre-
mises; instead he informed respondent no. 4 that he did not require the c
premises. Thereafter respondent no.4 allotted the first floor of the
house to the appellant by his order dt. July 23, 1976 and in pursuance
to that order she obtained possession of the premises on 25.7.76.
Mauji Ram Gupta, the landlord challenged the allotment order by
means of revision application before the District Judge but the same
was rejected. Mauji Ram Gupta entered into an agreement for the sale D
of the house with G.L. Pahwa, respondent no. I and in part perfor-
mance of the agreement he permitted G .L. Pahwa to occupy the
ground floor of the house in November 1976: G.L. Pahwa made appli-
cation for allotment and the respondent no. 4 allotted the ground floor
to him· on 3 1. 12:76, this appears to have been done with a view to
. regularise his possession. Mauji Ram Gupta executed a registered sale E
deed in favour of G.L. Pahwa on 18.7.77 transferring the entire house
including the premises in dispute to him, as a result of which respon-
dent no. 1 became the owner and the landlord of the premises in
dispute. R.K. Srivastava on unsuccessful applicant for the allotment of
the premises in dispute had challenged the allotment orde. r dt. 23.7.86
. ._ made in appellant's favour under sec. 18 of the Act. The District Judge F
by his order dt. 18.8. 77 allowed his revision application set aside the
.
. allotment order made in appellant's favour and directed respondent
no. 4 to reconsider the applications made for allotment of the premises
in accordance with law. In pursuance of the directions issued by the
District Judge respondent no. 4 considered the applications and by his
order dt. 4. 1. 78 he again allotted the premises to the appellant and G
rejected the claims of other applicants. Notice of the allotment pro-
ceedings was not given to respondent no. l, although by that time he
-<-- had acquired full rights of a landlor<j. It appears that respondent had
made an application to the State Govt. for release of the first floor and
that had been forwarded by the Govt. to respondent no. 4, which he
disposed of by the same order dt. 4.1. 78. Respondent no. I filed a H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
revision application under sec. 18 of the Act challenging the allotment
A
order dt. 4. I. 78. He filed a review application also before respondent 'I
no. 4 for recall of the order dt. 4.1.78. During the pendency of the
review application the revision application made by respondent no. 1
was dismissed by the District Judge on 28.2. 78 for want of prosecution.
However the review application of respondent no. 1 was allowed by
B respondent no. 4 by his order dt. 14. 12.81 on the finding that since the
premises in dispute was a part of landlord's building which he was >
occupying; it was mandatory that notice should have been issued to the
landlord and since no notice had been issued to him the allotment
order was· vitiated. On these findings, he recalled his Order dated
4.1. 78. The appellant challenged the order by means of a revision-__,••\
C application before the District Judge under sec. 18 of the Act. The
Addi. District Judge, Lucknow exercising powers of the District Judge
allowed the revision application by his order dt. 18.1.83, and set aside \,
the order of respondent no. 4 dt. 14.12.81, on the findings that review
application was not maintainable and respondent no. 4 had no jurisdic-
tion to review his order on the ground of absence of notice to respon-
D dent no. 1 who was transferee landlord. Respondent no. 1 challenged
the validity-of the order of the Addi. District Judge dt. 18. 1.83 by
means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the
High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ
petition by his order dt. January 20, 1984 and quashed the order of the
Addi. District Judge and directed respondent no. 4 to consider the
E application for allotment for giving notice to respondent no. !.
Aggrieved the appellant challenged the validity of the order of the
High Court.
Before we consider the submissions made on behalf of the appel-
lant it is necessary to briefly notice the findings recorded by the High ~
F Court. The High Court held that since the District Judge while setting
aside the initial order of allotment made in appellant's favour dt.
23.7.76 directed respondent no. 4 to consider the allotment applica- J
lions in accordance with law. Respondent no. 4 was under a legal duty
to issue notice to respondent no. 1 who had by that time acquired
rights of landlord. Since no notice was given to him the allotment
G proceeding was rendered illegal. The High Court further held that
even though the landlord's application for release of the premises in
dispute had been rejected, the transferee landlord had right to nomi-
nate a tenant of his choice in accordance with sec. 17(2) of the Act. But ··-i
as no notice was issued to him, he could not exercise his right to
nominate a tenant of his choice although the appellant as well as the
H authority considering the application for allotment both had acquired
KESHAV DEVI v. G.L. PAHWA (SINGH, J.) 131
knowledge that respondent no. I was the t~ansferee landlord occupy- A
ing a portion of the building. The High Court held that provisions of
sec. 17(1) were mat\datory and its non-compliance rendered the allot-
ment order void. The High Court held that as the order of allotment
dt. 4. I. 78 was made without giving noti.ce to the landlord, the alloting
· authprity was competent to recall its order in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. On these findings the High Cciurt set aside the order of B
the Addi. District Judge and directed the alloting authority to recon-
sjder the applications for allotment after giving notice to the landlord
respondent no. I.
Shri Tarkund~ learned counsel for the appellant urged that the
High Court committed error in setting aside the allotment order and
c
directing the District Magistrate to reconsider the allotment applica-
tions at the instance of G.L. Pahwa, respondent no. I. He further
urged that since Mauji Ram Gupta, the erstwhile landlord's applica-
tion for release of the premises in dispute had been dismissed and
revision against that was also dismissed for non-prosecution, the erst-
while landlord had exh.austed all his rights available to him under the D
Act. G.L. Pahwa being the successor in interest of Mauji Ram Gupta,
did not and could not acquire any further right either to get the pre-
mises in dispute released in his favour or to challenge the validity of
the allotment order. G.L. Pahwa was not entitled to maintain a review
application and Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to
recall his order dated 4. I. 78 alloting the premises to the appellant and E
further he was not entitled to any notice eithe.r under section 17(2) of
the Act or under Rule 9(3), as the requisite notice had already been
issued to the erstwhile landlord Mau ji Ram Gupta who had contested ·
the allotment proceedings. Having given o.ur anxious consideration to
. these submissions and having regard to the facts and circumstance of
,, the case we do not find any merit in the submissions. . F
'
· WJien a building or a part of a building falls vacant or is likely to
fall vacant, the District Magistrate uhder section 16( l)(a) of the Act
has jurisdiction to issue allotment order requiring the landlord to let
the building or part thereof to the person specified in the order. 1Jle
landlord may apply to the District Magistrate for release of the whole G
or any part of such building under section 16( l)(h) of the Act, if the
release application is allowed, the landlord is permitted to occupy the
building or part thereof as the case may be. But if release application is
dismissed the District Magistrate is empowered to issue allotment or-
der in favour of an applicant, and in pursuance thereof the allottee is
entitled to take possession. Before applications for allotment are con- H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
A sidered by the District Magistrate it is mandatory for him to serve 1
notice of the vacancy on the landlord informing him the date on which
the allotment is to be considered as prescribed by Rule 9 of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules,
1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 9(3) requires service
of notice and intimation of the date fixed for considering the allotment
B of the premises which may have fallen vacant or is likely to fall vacant.
This is mandatory as has been'held by this Couri in Yoginder Tiwari v.
District Judge, Gorakhpur and Ors., [1984] 2SCC128 and in catena of
cases the High Court of Allahabad, has taken the same view, it is not
necessary to burden the judgment by referring to all those decisions'--"'\
The object and purpose of the notice to the landlord regarding the date
fixed for allotment proceedings is to enable him to file his objections if
c any, to the allotment proceedings or to make application for release of
the premises as contemplated by section 16( l)(a) of the Act or to
nominate a tenant of his choice if he himself is in occupation of a
portion of the building. An allotment order made without giving
notice to the landlord as required by Rule 9(3) would be rendered
D illegal. We therefore agree with the view taken by the High Court.
At the initial stage of allotment proceedings for the year 1976,
Mauji Ram Gupta, the erstwhile landlord had made application for
release of the accommodation and the first fl'oor of the house, but that
application was rejected and thereupon the District Magistrate allot-
E ted the premises to H.C. Ghildiyal by his order dated 23.7.76 Mauji
Ram Gupta's revision application against the order rejecting his re-
lease application was rejected by the District Judge on 5.8. 76. Mean-
while the District Magistrate allotted the premises to the appellant by
his order dated 23. 7. 76. On the dismissal of the revision application of
1
Mauji Ram Gupta, his claim for release of the premises in dispute
F stood rejected.finally. As noted earlier Mauji Ram Gupta sold the'
entire house in dispute to G.L. Pahwa on 18.7.77 and the allotment
order in appellant's favour was set aside by the Additional District
Judge on 8.8. 77 at the instance of R. K. Srivastava on unsuccessful
applicant for the allotment of the premises in dispute! It is noteworthy
that the appellant took no proceedings to challenge the order of Addi-
G tional District Judge dt. 8.8. 77 under which the allotment order was
set aside and the District Magistrate was directed to reconsider the
allotment applications in accordance with law. In such a situation G.L.
Pahwa who had admittedly became the landlord of the premises in
dispute was entitled to exercise rights of the landlord available to him
under the Act.
H
Section 17(2) lays down that where a part of a building is in occu-
KESHAV DEVI v. G.L. PAHWA [SINGH, J.] 133
pation of landlord for a residential purpose, the anotment of any other A
part thereof under section 16( l)(a) sha[[ be made in favour of a person
nominated by the landlord. This provision safeguards interest of the
landlord to have a tenant of his choice if he is occupying a portion of
the building. The legislature enacted sec. 17(2) with a view to ensure
peaceful living to a landlord and for that purpose ·it permitted the
landlord to have a tenant of his choice. The landlord's valuable right B
cannot be taken away by the District Magistrate while exercising his
powers of allotment under sec. 16( l)(a) of the Act. The scope and
purpose of sec. 17(2) of the Act was considered by this Court in Babu
Singh Chauhan v. Rajkumar Jain & Ors., [ 1982] 3 SCR I 14 and the
- Court observed: ·
c
"A perusal of this statutory provision would clearly disc-
lose that the object of the Act was that where a tenant
inducted by the landlord voluntarily vacates the premises,
which are a part of the building occupied by the landlord,
and a[[otment in the vacancy should be made only to a
person nominated by the landlord. The dominant purpose D
to be subserved by the Act is manifestly the question of
removing any inconvenience to the landlord by imposing or
thrusting on the premises an unpleasant neighbour or a
tenant who' invades the right of privacy of the landlord. It is
l..., obvious that if the tenant has vacated the premises by him-
self and not at the instance of the landlord, there is no E
question of the landlord occupying the said. premises
'because he has got a separate remedy for evicting the
tenant on the grounds of personal necessity. The statute,
however, while empowering the prescribed authority to
a[[ot the accommodation, safeguards at least the right of
the landlord to have a tenant of his choice." F
In the instant case there is no dispute that when the anotment
proceedings were taken in pursuance of the District Judge's Order dt.
8.8. 77 and when the allotment was made in appe[[ant's favour on
4.1.78 .no notice of the anotment proceedings wa§ issued to G.L.
Pahwa, respondent no. 1, although the appenant as wen as the Addi. G
District Magistrate both knew that G. L. Pahwa had stepped in the
shoes of landlord and that he was occupying ground floor of the build-
ing. The allotment order was made in appellant's favour on 4. I. 78, but
the landlord, though residing in a p'art of the building was denied
opportunity of nominating a tenant of his choice as contemplated by
sec. 17(2) of the Act. In these circumstan~es there can be.no doubt that H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.
A the order of the Addi. District Magistrate alloting the premises to the 1
appellant was completely without jurisdiction and against the plain
terms of sec. 17(2) of the Act.
The submission of Shri Tarkunde that on dismissal of the revi-
sion application of Mauji Ram Gupta the erstwhile landlord, all rights
B of the landlord stood exhausted and G. L. Pahwa being the transferee
landlord could not exercise any further right of landlord in the .natter
relating to allotment of the premis~s in dispute are untenable. Mauji
Ram Gupta's application for release of the premises was dismissed and
a revision application filed by him against the order of the Addi.~
District Magistrate refusing to release premises in dispute stood re- '
C jected, but if the conditions set out in sec. 16( t)(b) existed we see nc
reason as to why the transferee landlord could not press his case for
release but we do not think it necessary to consider this question in >
detail or to express any opinion on this question as admittedly the
transferee landlord respondent no. t made no application for release
of the premises in dispute to the District Magistrate or to the pre-
D scribed authority and his application made to the State Government
for release of the accommodation which was forwarded to the District
,Magistrate was rejected and the High Court has upheld that ordc~ and
no challenge has been made by G. L. Pahwa to that order. Assuming
that the transferee landlord's right to get the premises in dispute re-
leased stood exhausted, G.L. Pahwa being the landlord had every
E right to nominate a tenant of his choice in accordance with sec. 17(2)
of the Act. Admittedly no notice had been issued to G.L. Pahwa
affording any opportunity of nominating a tenant of his choice before
the order of allotment dt . .J. l. 78 was made. The landlord has right to
apply for release of the premises on the falling of a vacancy failing
which he has another right under sec. 17(2) to nominate a tenant of his /
1
F choice if he is occupying a portion of the building. It is the duty of the
authority considering the allotment under sec. 16( l)(a) of the Act. to J
afford opportunity to the landlord to nominate tenant o( his choice and
if the landlord nominates a person of his choice the authority is bound
to allot the premises in favour of the nominee of the landlord. Mau ji
Ram Gupta was not given that opportunity. there was thus no question
G of his having exhausted his right to nominate a tenant of his choice.
Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Addi. District '
Magistrate had no power to allow the review application made by G. L.
Pahwa or to recall his order dt. .J. I.78 alloting the premises in dispute
to the appellant. Sec. 16(5) provides for review of an order of allot-
H ment at the instance of a landlord on an application made within 7
/
KESHAV DEVI v. G.L. PAHWA [SINGH, J.) 135
days. In the instant case the Addi. District Magistrate by his Order dt. A
14. 12.8 l recalled his order dt. 4.1.'78 alloting the premises in dispute to
the appellant on the ground that no notice of the proceeding had been
served on the landlord, respondent no. 1 and that there was enougb
evidence on record to show that the premises in dispute was a part of
the landlord's accommodation, yet he was- not given opportunity to
nominate a tenant of his choice. The Addi. District Magistrate there- B
fore recalled the order on the ground that the allotment order had
been issued in violation of the mandatory provision of sec. 17(2) of the
Act. No exception can be .taken to the· correctness of the merit of the
.>..., ..order of the Addi. District Magistrate. As discussed above we have
already expressed our opinion that the allotment order dt. 4.1. 78
issued in appellant's favour was· rendered illegal for the non-com- c
pliance of the mandatory provision of sec. 17(2) of the Act. In that
view even if there was any procedural defect in entertaining the review
application, it would not be proper and desirable to interfere with the
order of the Addi. District Magistrate, more so, when the Higb Court
has already upheld that order.
D
In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the
Higb Court's order does not suffer from any error of law and the
appellant is .not entitled to any relief. We accordingly dismiss the
appeal with costs.
M.L.A. Appeal dismissed. E
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "allotment order"Sign in to search