The burden of proving the income of the tenant is on the landlord when he makes an application for permission to file eviction proceedings against the tenant. However, the burden shifts to the tenant once the landlord produces evidence of the tenant's status and means.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Shri Rattan Lal is the owner/landlord of i of the property bearing No. 4070-4072. Naya Bazar, Delhi. Shri Ram Sarup, respondent No. 3 is in occupation of this portion of the property as tenant @ Rs. 123. 32 per mensem. On 28-4-1969 the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act against the respondent. Ram Samp for instituting a suit for obtaining a decree/order for his eviction on the following amongst other grounds :

(A) That the tenant has not paid any rent since 1-1-1969 at the agreed rate of Rs. 123 32 per mensem ; (b) That the tenant has caused and permitted to be caused substantial damage to the property let out to him-total damage assessed at Rs. 55. 000. 00. (c) That the tenant has started using the premises as a godown for storing oil, though it was given to him for being used as a shop- there is misuser of the premises ; (d) That the tenant has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of a portion of the premises to other persons without the permission of the petitioner.

( 2 ) NOTICE of the filing of the application was duly served on the tenant. During the course of the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner filehis own affidavit regarding the status/means of the respondent and his capacity to acquire an alternative accommodation. The tenant filed his counter-affidavit, in which he took up the stand that the tenancy in respect of the premises in dispute is in the name of M/s Sundoo Mal Ram Sarup, who are the real tenants of the premises in question and by not joining the firm the present petition is not maintainable. It is also alleged that there is no privity of contract of landlord and tenant between, the parties. Even otherwise the respondent is not in a position to acquire another suitable alternative accommodation now is he possessed of sufficient means for the said purpose. All other averments were also specifically denied.

( 3 ) THE Competent Authority vide order dated 25-2-1972 dismissed the petition by holding that the respondent has no means to arrange an alternative accommodation and will create slum if evicted. The appeal of the petitioner before the financial Commissioner met with the same fate on 8-5-1972. it is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for the setting aside of the impugned order and granting the petitioners application for permission to file a suit/proceedings eviction of his tenant, Shri Ram Sarup

( 4 ) THIS case has been on the Daily Board of this court since 1-5-1986 and inspite of the service of the notice on the respondent no body has cared to put in appearance.

( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his help gone through the record carefully.

( 6 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to start with is that inspite of the unrebutted evidence of the petitioner about the means and financial status of the tenant, the competent authority/finance Commissioner have not given a definite finding in this regard and as such have ignored the mandatory provisions of Section 19 (4) (a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. The court below have altogether ignored the material evidence of the tenant having an alternative accommodation and his capacity/means to acquire an alternative accommodation. It is also alleged that as per the finding of the courts below the respondent s income has been assessed at Rs. l,09,4l0. 00 per year, which earning by itself is sufficient enough to justify the grant of the relief to the petitioner.

( 7 ) BEFORE dealing with the points urged in support of the present petition the findings of the Financial Commissioner have to be kept in mind. The first finding is that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and Ram Sarup. The second finding is that the total income accruing to the respondent o