S. N. Kapoor, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order 25th April 1975 under Section. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the act for short ).

( 2 ) THE learned Competent Authority (Slum) has granted permission vide impugned order, to file eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground that all the respondents owned house No. WZ 40 in Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. They let out the said house to the petitioner for their residence. They would not create a slum in case of their eviction from the premises under dispute.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, this petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that house No. WZ 40 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar exclusively belonged to Baldev Raj and to none other petitioner. The petitioner No. 4 was never a tenant and he had just been impleaded on the ground that he happened to be the son of the former tenant Shri Raj Dhar. Since long he had been living separately his own premises. The learned Competent Authority (Slum) has completely overlooked the income and means of petitioner Nos. 1-3.

( 4 ) IN the light of the above, two questions are required to be seen: (i) "whether Baldev Raj was the exclusive owner of property No. WZ 40 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar?" and (ii) "whether the petitioners have sufficient means to acquire alternative accommodation without creating slums?"

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the landlord/respondent, the petitioners had purchased house. No. WZ 40 Sant Garh Tilak Nagar and WZ 105 Sant Garh Tilak Nagar from the funds provided by all the petitioners including the father of the petitioners and these houses belonged to all the petitioners. The petitioners sold out the house No. WZ 105 Sant Garh Tilak Nagar during the pendency of the proceedings only to deceive and defraud the answering respondents.

( 6 ) ABOUT house No. WZ 105 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, it is averred by the petitioner/tenant that it was false and "no such house is owned either by Baldev Raj or either by any of the respondents". It is notable that the petitioners arc silent about purchase of house No. W2 105 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar. There is no affidavit to the effect that the petitioners never had any connection whatsoever with house No. WZ 105 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar. It maybe mentioned that according to the affidavit Filed before the Competent Authority (Slum) as well as in this High Court, this fact was specifically agitated by the landlord.

( 7 ) AS regards the best evidence, a copy of the Sale Deed in favour of Baldev Raj has been filed which showed that house No. WZ 40 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar was purchased in the name of Baldev Raj alone. As such, there appears to be some substance in the contention of the respondent that three other brothers did not own it.

( 8 ) ACCORDING to Baldev Raj, he had left the premises in dispute in 1961. This aspect was considered by the Competent Authority (Slum) and he rejected the contention on account of the fact that the tenant/petitioners had failed to produce any documentary evidence including ration card, voters list etc. to show that Baldev Raj had shifted to WZ 40 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar. The contention of Baldev Raj that he shifted in the year 1961. The property was sold on 12th February 1964 vide Annexurc b . This document does not indicate that he was occuping the property under any agreement to sell or otherwise since before. It may further be interesting to note that Dalip Singh, who sold the property himself purchased it on 29th December 1962. In such circumstances, it could not be accepted that he shifted in the house in the year 1961 and he did not continue in the house as alleged by the landlord specially on account of the fact that Baldev Raj had not produced any documents referred to in the judgment of Competent Authority (Slum) even before this court to satisfy that he had shifted in the year 1961 to WZ 40 Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar.

( 9 ) THUS, It is evident that all the petitioners arc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document