Important Point
Factors mentioned in sub-section (4) (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, for granting/refusing to grant permission to evict tenant are to be considered as alternative and not cumulative.

Headnote:Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 - Section 19(4)(a) and (b)-Eviction of tenant from building or land in slum area -Granting/refusing to grant permission - Factors stipulated in clauses (a) and (b)-Whether cumulative-No-They are conditions in the alternative - Satisfaction of either of two factors sufficient.
       Held : Considering the provisions of Section 19, it is apparent that permission to file suit for evicting a tenant from any building or land in a slum area or to permit execution of such decree or order obtained prior to coming into force of the amendment Act, the competent authority is required to take into account factors mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (4). If the factor mentioned in Clause (a) is satisfied, that is to say, if the alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant is available, then there is no reason to hold that second factor is also required to be satisfied before granting permission under sub-section (3). In such a case, there could not be any justifiable reason for the competent authority to refuse to grant permission for filing the suit or proceedings for obtaining any decree or order for eviction of a tenant or for granting permission to execute decree or order, if obtained. Further, Clause (b) provides that before granting such permission, the competent authority should be satisfied whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas and if it is in the interest or improvement and clearance of the sum areas, then permission for eviction can be granted. In such cases also, a tenant would not be put to any hardship if he is evicted. The reason is, if there is a scheme of clearance of the slum area framed by the competent authority, then as observed by this Court in the case of Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for the Union Territory of Delhi, (1961) 2 SCR 125, the policy of the enactment suggests that slum dwellers should not be evicted unless alternative accommodation to be made could be obtained for him; that if the buildings or the entire area are to be ordered to be demolished, in that event, the dwellers would, of course, have to vacate, but it was presumed that alternative accommodation would necessarily have to be provided before any such order is made. It is true that for some time alternative accommodation may not be provided to the tenant but it is required to be provided within reasonable time. Eviction process and improvement or re-construction process is required to be carried out in an orderly fashion if the purpose of the act is to be fulfilled. Further, if the building is required by the owner for demolition or re-construction or improvement, then Section 20A takes care of the tenants. It provides that if the tenant desires to be replaced in the occupation of the building after completion of the work of improvement or re-erection of the building, then he is required to file an application before the competent authority. On the basis of this section, if the tenant is evicted on the ground of improvement or demolition of the building in the slum area, then tenant is required to be provided accommodation in the improved or re-constructed building. (Para 6)
       Hence, even if these two factors mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) are to be taken into account as alternative factors by the competent authority before granting permission to file a suit for eviction or to grant permission for execution of a decree against a tenant residing in a slum area, the tenant’s rights are not in any manner prejudicially affected. He is fully protected by the scheme of the Act. Hence, the finding given by the High Court that in a given case, the tenant may not be provided with alternative accommodation is not only against the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Jyoti Prasad, but also against the scheme of the Act. However, the High Court was right in holding that the factors which are mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 19 are to be taken into account as alternative factors. (Para 7)

Judgment

Shah, J.-In these appeals, only question involved is whether factors laid down in Section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are to be read as cumulatively or alternatively. The full bench of the Delhi High Court has interpreted the aforesaid sub-section (4) and has arrived at the conclusion that the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 19(4) of Act were conditions in the alternative and did not have to be read cumulatively. The Court also, inter-alia, held as under:-

“That the principal objective of the Act being clearance of slums and Prevention and creation of slums, if in a given case the demolition or re-erection or re-construction of a building or a set of buildings was necessary in the interest of slum clearance or improvement, the poverty of the tenant even if established would not debar the competent authority from granting permission.

The competent authority in considering the application for grant of permission moved by a landlord has to look at the matter from the point of view of the tenant and not from the point of view of the landlord, ever keeping in mind the objectives sought to be achieved by the Act.”

The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court.

2. For appreciating the contentions raised by the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to Section 19 of the Act which is as under:-

“Notwithstanding anything, contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority,-

(a) institute, after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964 any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area; or

(b) where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order.

2. Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to the competent authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed.

3. On receipt of such application, the competent authority, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission.

4. In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, namely:-

(a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted.

(b) Whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas;

5. Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission, it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant.”

3. At this stage, we would state that sub-section (4) of Section 19 was substituted by Act 43 of 1964 alongwith other amendments in the Act. Prior to that, sub-section (4) read as under:-

“Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant.”

4. The validity of Section 19 of the Act was challenged and this Court in the case of Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for The Union Territory of Delhi1 has upheld its constitutional validity. In that case, it was contended that Act has vested in the competent authority the power to withhold eviction in pursuance of the orders or decrees of courts without affording any guidance or laying down any principles

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 269

Important PointFactors mentioned in sub-section (4) (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, for granting/refusing to grant permission to evict tenant are to be considered as alterna­tive and not cumulative.

Login now and unlock premium legal research

Important Point
Factors mentioned in sub-section (4) (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, for granting/refusing to grant permission to evict tenant are to be considered as alternative and not cumulative.