( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed against the order dated 27th October, 1975 granting permission under Section 19 (1) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act) 1956 (hereinafter called "act" for short ).

( 2 ) IN this petition two short questions arise which are as under:-

(1) Whether interlocutory orders passed in connection with inquiry under Section 19 (1) of the Act arc appealable under Section 30?

(2) Whether the Competent Authority (slum) could order appointment of Local Commissioner for the purpose of inquiry under Section 19 (1) of the Act?

( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding further it would be desirable to appreciate factual matrix. The landlady Rukmani Devi has sought permission to institute eviction proceedings against widows of Bansi Lal tenant the petitioner Lachchmi Devi and Gomati Devi from the premises House No. 2166, Gali Sudama Wali, Bazar Sita Ram comprising of one room portion of the top floor having covered area of 875 Sq. ft. The petition has been filed inter alia on the grounds that neither of the two widows paid rent. They arc misusing the premises by representing themselves to be the owner/landlady and keeping some unauthorised construction in the properly and caused substantial damage to the premises. They arc ladies of means and status and they could easily acquire alternative accommodation. It is further claimed that the eviction of the two widows would be in the interest of Slum clearance for they would not create a slum in the premises in dispute.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner Lachchmi Devi and Kapoori Devi was that there was one Bansi Lal who took the entire house on contractual tenancy in the year 1941. Shri Bansi Lal expired 6 or 7 years before filing the written statement. His two widows Lachchmi Devi and Gomti Devi inherited tenancy rights.

( 5 ) GOMATI Devi expired in 1975 leaving behind Kapoori Devi during pendency of this matter. Lachchmi Devi also expired and her daughter Kalawati has been substituted vide order dated 24. 5. 1981.

( 6 ) IT appears that on 24. 1. 1974 landlady moved an application seeking permission to file affidavit of previous owner Purushotam Prakash as additional evidence. That application was allowed and that was filed on 26. 3. 74. On 12. 4. 74 case was ordered to proceed Ex parte. On 25. 4. 74 appellant filed three affidavits and seven documents. An application to set aside order to proceed ex parte was also moved. That application was allowed on 20. 5. 74. On the application of the tenant side dated 19. 7. 74, three affidavits and seven documents filed on 25. 4. 74 were ordered to be returned, vide order dated 9. 8. 74. The case was adjourned for final arguments on 21st August, 1974. On 21st August, 1974, the counsel for the landlady sought an adjournment on the ground of filing an appeal against the order dated 9th August, 1974 which was refused and the arguments were heard and the case was adjourned to 11th September, 1974 for pronouncement of order. Thus, it is evident that neither permission has been granted nor refused. On 31st January, 1975, on an appeal the Financial Commissioner, allowed Filing of these affidavils and documents tendered by the Respondent No. 1 with further directions that the petitioner be given a chance to file evidence in rebuttal thereof. Thereafter, the Competent Authority was also directed to proceed to decide the application under Section 19 (1) in accordance with law. It was however made clear that after the rebuttal by the respondent as directed the evidence recorded would stand closed.

( 7 ) IT appears from the petition that the main grievance of the petitioner is that order dated 31st January, 1975 passed by the learned Appellate Authority has been violated by the Competent Authority (Slum) by appointing Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and to report as to how many families were residing in the premises and the amount of rent, if any, charged by the tenants, from the