( 1 ) THE present appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 17th March, 1981, whereby the appellant sub-tenant, has been allowed to be proceeded against for an action for his eviction from the premises situated in the slum area, as defined in the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act) without seeking prior permission of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. Lala Ganpat Rai, respondent was a thekedar (contractor) of the entire house no. 4530, Daiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi with the right to let and sub-let the whole or a part thereof to a third person. Kailash Chand, the appellant, was in occupation of a portion of the first floor of the said house as a sub-tenant at the rate of Rs. 20. 40 per mensem. Sometime back in the year 1972, Ganpat Rai filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act, seeking permission from the Competent Authority to institute eviction proceedings against Kailash Chand. During the pendency of these proceedings, the original landlord filed a petition for eviction in the court of the Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14 (l) (a) and (h) against Kailash Chand on the allegations that the premises are bona fide required for his residence and that of his family members and that Kailash Chand has acquired an alternative accommodation. Kailash Chand contended before the Competent Authority that since the eviction petition has already been initiated by the landlord against him. the present application under Section 19 of the Act has become infructuous and is not maintainable. The Competent Authority overruled this objection and held that Ganpat Rai s application under Section 19 of the Act is maintainable. Against this orde Kailash Chand filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. While allowing the appeal and quashing the proceedings under Section 19 of the Act, the learned Financial Commissioner observed :-

"moreover, when the eviction proceedings are continuing in the court of the Rent Controller, there is no purpose of harassing the applicant in the court of the Competent Authority. Obviously, the present proceedings under Section 19 of the Act are infructuous and are not maintainable under law. The learned Competent Authority has erred in not considering the fact that the premises in dispute under the present proceedings are included in the eviction proceedings filed in the Court of the Rent Controller Delhi against the applicant and permission or refusal to file eviction proceedings under the Act will have no bearing on the eviction proceedings continuing in the court of the Rent Controller. I, therefore, hold that the present petition before the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the Act is infructuous and is untenable. "against the order of refusal, to grant permission, Ganpat Rai came to the High Court by way of filing a civil writ petition no. 45/78. While dismissing this petition in limini, the Bench observed thus ;-

"we are not inclined to entertain this petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution dismissing the application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 not by the owner but by a person claiming to be a tenant with a right to sub-lease the property to respondent no. 1. On the petitioner s own allegations, this would not fall within the ambit of Section 19 of the said Act. The petition is dismissed accordingly. "armed with the said observations of High Court Ganpat Rai filed the petition under Section 14 (l) (a) (h) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the subtenant Kailash Chand alleging therein that he has acquired a vacant possession of a residential accommodation of his own bearing house no. C-2/41,bhimnagarhauzkhas, New Delhi; that the respondent is a regular defaulter in payment of rent and that he has not paid