Back
High Court Of Delhi
PADAM NARAIN - Appellant
Versus
G.C.JAIN - Respondent
Decided On : 11/03/1983
RENT CONTROL - EVICTION - LEAVE TO EXECUTE EVICTION ORDER - COMPETENT AUTHORITY'S FAILURE TO CONSIDER TENANTS' FAMILY SIZE AND SUSTAINANCE REQUIREMENTS - FATAL INFIRMITY - SUBSEQUENT CHANGES IN TENANTS' AND OWNERS' SITUATIONS - REMAND FOR DETERMINATION BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY - TENANTS' LIBERTY TO SEEK RELIEF AGAINST EVICTION ORDER IN APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the execution of an eviction order made in 1963 against tenants occupying a first-floor premises. The owners sought leave to execute the order, but the Competent Authority and Appellate Authority upheld the tenants' objections. The owners then filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was remanded back to the Competent Authority. During the pendency of the petition, one of the tenants and one of the owners died. The surviving tenant and the legal representatives of the deceased tenant sought to implead the legal representatives of the deceased owner, but their plea was rejected. The owners filed an affidavit setting out subsequent events and changes in the situation of the parties, while the tenants filed a counter-affidavit. The Competent Authority's order was challenged on the ground that it failed to consider the tenants' family size and sustenance requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Competent Authority's order suffered from a fatal infirmity as it failed to consider the total number of members of the tenants' family and whether they could afford alternative accommodation within their means. The Court also noted that the tenants' family had grown to 12 members, making it difficult for them to live in the meager accommodation available. The Court further observed that the owners' need for additional accommodation, which formed the basis of the eviction order, had changed due to the death of some family members and the construction of new properties.
Issues: 1. Whether the Competent Authority's failure to consider the tenants' family size and sustenance requirements rendered its order fatally flawed? 2. Whether subsequent changes in the tenants' and owners' situations could be considered in determining the validity of the eviction order? 3. Whether the tenants could seek relief against the eviction order in appropriate proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Competent Authority's failure to consider the tenants' family size and sustenance requirements was a fatal infirmity that rendered its order invalid. It emphasized the importance of considering these factors in determining whether the tenants could afford alternative accommodation within their means without creating slum conditions. 2. The Court recognized that subsequent changes in the tenants' and owners' situations could be relevant in determining the validity of the eviction order. However, it held that such changes could not be adjudicated upon in the present proceedings and should be left to the Competent Authority to determine after giving both parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 3. The Court affirmed the tenants' right to seek relief against the eviction order in appropriate proceedings, such as by challenging the order on the ground of change in the owners' situation.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the Competent Authority's order but not the proceedings in which it was made. The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority with directions to determine the question before it in the context of the latest situation of the petitioners after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to be heard. The Competent Authority was also directed to send notices of the further proceedings to the legal representatives of the deceased owner and to decide the matter within three months from the commencement of further proceedings.
( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings for leave to execute an eviction order made in November, 1963 and the proceedings between the parties have had a rather chequered career.
( 2 ) THE premises in dispute consisting of first floor, comprising one room, two small tin sheds, a verandah covered by a tin shed, and a courtyard called a terrace, and forms (art of house No. VHI/963, Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, which was purchased by Bakshish Singh and Ran Singh Rana in February 1956. Padam Narain and bis brother Santosh Narain had been in occupation of the first floor as tenants since before the purchase. The owners sought ejectment of the tenants in February, 1959, but failed in the attempt. Fresh proceedings for the ejectment of the tenants waa filed in November, 1963 on the ground at personal need and an order of ejectment was made by the then Rent Controller on November 4, 1963. The landlord sought leave to execute the ejectment order but the Competent Authority turned down the plea by an order of August 11, 1965. The order of the Competent Authority was upheld in appeal by the then judicial secretary, acting as the Appellate Authority in 1969. The owners moved this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution being Civil Writ Petition No. 1382/67. The appellate order was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the Competent Authority. Before the appellate authority, however, the owners withdrew the petition for leave to execute the order. In December, 1967, the owners filed a fresh petition for leave and by an order of October 10, 1975 the Competent Authority granted leave. The present petition was filed by the tenants on November 11, 1975.
( 3 ) THE competent authority considered the question if the tenants were persons of sufficient means and status so as to be able to acquire alternative accommodation, within their means, without creating slum elsewhere. It found that one of the tenants Padam Narain, who was in the employment of a private company, has since retired and the question of taking into account his income did not arise. The Competent Authority, however, found that the son of Padam Narain was, nevertheless, an earning member and came to the conclusion that the income of Santosh Narain and son of Padam Narain worked to Rs. 1,322. 00 p. m. The Competent Authority further found that the covered area of the premises in dispute was about 421 sq. ft. and that the tenants could acquire an alternative accommodation of equal size for Rs. 147. 35 p. m. at the rate of 35 p. per sq. ft. and that the tenants Were, therefore, in a position to acquire alternative accommodation within their means without creating slum. . The Competent Authority, however, did not devote any attention to the question as to the total members of the family of the brothers and as to how much they would require for their sustenance in deciding the question before it.
( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the petition in this Court, Santosh Narain died in April, 1976. One of the owners. Bakshish Singh, also died in 1978. In 1979, the surviving tenant and the legal representatives of his deceased brother sought to implead the legal representatives of Bakshish Singh but their plea was turned down by M. L. Jain, J. , by an order of February 5, 1980, on the ground of delay. The proceedings continued to be opposed on behalf of the surviving owner Ram Singh Rana. By the time the petition came up for final hearing, there have been fresh events and further changes in the situation and fortunes of both sides. In the course of arguments, Counsel for the parties made repeated references to the various changes and the subsequent events in an attempt to seek a favourable decision on the basis of one or the other of these changes and events. While the owner was naturally anxious that whatever subsequent events had taken place since the filing of the petition in 1975 should be brought on record, so that a fresh trial o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
