The standards for determining the financial status of a corporate body under Section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, are different from those for an individual tenant.

( 1 ) COMP. Authority held that Respdt. was not earning much and declined permission. Order was upheld in appeal by Fin. Comm. Petitioned moved High Court. After detailing above facts, judgment proceeds]

( 2 ) THE object of the Slum Act is the orderly elimination of slums with interim protection for the slum dwellers until they are moved into better dwelling. The Comp. Auth. are given sufficient discretion under the Slum Act to ascertain whether the tenant, who has accommodation in the slum area, is likely to create further slums, if evicted. While exercising this discretion, however the Comp. Auth. can take into account only the factors mentioned in S. 19 (4) of the Slum Act. It is well settled that the two factors which have to be taken into consideration are : (a) the availability of alternate accommodation and (b) the financial status of the tenant in order to find out whether he would be in a position to get alternate accommodation in case he was evicted or whether he was likely to create slums.

( 3 ) FOR finding out whether alternate accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him, the Comp. Auth. has to inquire into the question of the means of the tenant. A landlord, who files the petition u/s 19, alleging that the tenant has sufficient means would not naturally be in a position to know the exact income of the tenant. However, while filing the petition for permission u/s 19 for institution of eviction proceedings against the tenant he has to allege what according to his knowledge or information is the income of the tenant and adduce such evidence as is possible for him to place before the Comp. Auth. Once the landlord has done that, it is for the tenant to adduce positive evidence regarding his income which is especially within his knowledge. [petitioner applied to Comp. Auth. On 23. 5. 70 for permission u/s 19 to sue respondent for eviction, Respdt. was doing business of Auto Spare parts in tenanted premises.

( 4 ) COMP. Auth. in the present case on a specific averment made by the petitioner that alternate accommodation bearing No. 1470, Rang Mahal, was being used as a registered office by the tenant, inspected the premises and made a report on 6. 10. 71. In his report, he observed that the premised 1470, Rang Mahal comprised of dingy, dusty, foul-smelling suffocating, covered with spider webs, having no ventilation and uneven floors. The premises presented of a look of a godown and, therefore, the premises could not be used as alternate accommodation in place of the disputed premises, which is situated in the main tyre market. It was stated in the report that the alternate accommodation was at a distance of 50 yards from the disputed premises in a lane in which there was not a single shop which deals in tyres. While dealing with the questions of status, the Comp. Auth. observed that the incom-tax assessment returns filed by the company for the year 1967-68 and 1969-70 were of no avail as no orders of assessment were passed thereon. Therefore, he relied on the balance-sheets filed by the company. The contention of the petitioner that by an order dated 23. 3. 71 the ITO had not accepted the balance-sheets filed by the company, and therefore, the balance- sheets filed for the subsequent years cannot be relied upon, was not accepted. While accepting the balance-sheets and coming to the conclusion that the company does not have sufficient means to get alternate accommodation, the Comp. Autho. observed :-

"i, therefore relying upon the balance- sheet hold that the respondent firm is running into a loss of Rs. 1,359. 00 for the year 1970. Even if for the sake of argument, it be assumed that alleged advances are simply paper transactions to their own firms as Shri Paras Nath, Managing Director, is running several "firms, as is evident from the Calendar, filed by the petitioner, the only adverse inference which can be drawn is that the respondent firm must be earning commercial interest o