Back
High Court Of Delhi
HARBHAJAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
SHAKUNTLA DEVI SHARMA - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 129 of 1974
Decided On : 10/22/1975
SLUM AREAS (IMPROVEMENT AND CLEARANCE) ACT, 1956 - SECTION 19 (1) (A) - Permission to institute proceedings for eviction of tenant - Authority's reliance on Commissioner's report without considering objections and affidavits filed by tenant - Held, order quashed and proceedings remanded for determination according to law.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant challenged the order of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, granting permission to the landlady to institute proceedings for his eviction. The landlady sought permission under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act on grounds of misuse of premises, acquisition of alternative accommodation, desertion of premises, and unauthorized subletting.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Authority relied solely on the Commissioner's report without considering the objections filed by the tenant and the numerous affidavits filed in support of his contention. The report itself was based on limited evidence and did not support the conclusion that the tenant had independent residential accommodation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner's report and evidence constituted legal evidence without the Commissioner being examined as a witness and subjected to cross-examination. 2. Whether the Authority was bound to consider and decide the objections filed by the tenant to the Commissioner's report. 3. Whether the report and material submitted by the Commissioner could be used as substantive evidence. 4. Whether the finding on the question of the tenant's status and means was based on no evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commissioner's report and evidence were considered legal evidence under Rule 10 (2) of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the parties had the right to examine the Commissioner personally. 2. The Authority was bound to consider and decide the objections filed by the tenant to the Commissioner's report before relying on it. 3. The report and material submitted by the Commissioner could be used as substantive evidence. 4. The finding on the question of the tenant's status and means was based on no evidence and did not support the conclusion that the tenant had independent residential accommodation.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the proceedings to the Authority for determination according to law after deciding the objections to the Commissioner's report and giving an opportunity to the parties to examine the Commissioner or produce other evidence.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The authority's reliance solely on the Commissioner’s report without considering objections and affidavits filed by the tenant rendered the order unsustainable. The order was quashed and the proceedings remanded for proper determination according to law (!) .
The tenant challenged an order granting permission to the landlady to institute eviction proceedings under the relevant Act, on grounds including misuse of premises, acquisition of alternative accommodation, desertion, and unauthorized subletting (!) (!) .
The local Commissioner’s report, which was based on limited evidence and did not involve examination or cross-examination of the Commissioner, was considered legal evidence but was not properly scrutinized by the authority, especially since objections filed by the tenant were not properly considered (!) (!) (!) .
The authority was obliged to consider and decide on the objections filed by the tenant before relying on the Commissioner’s report; failure to do so was a procedural infirmity (!) .
The report and the material submitted by the Commissioner could be used as substantive evidence, but the findings based solely on this report were not supported by adequate evidence, especially regarding the tenant’s status and residential arrangements (!) (!) .
The report’s conclusions on the tenant’s residence and independence were not supported by sufficient evidence. The report indicated that the tenant was residing with his son in a different premises, but this did not establish that he had independent accommodation of his own (!) (!) .
The authority failed to give proper consideration to numerous affidavits filed by the tenant, which supported his claim of residing and conducting business in the disputed premises and having alternative accommodation through his son. This oversight contributed to an order based on incomplete and unsubstantiated findings (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the authority’s order was primarily based on the Commissioner’s report, which was flawed and ignored relevant objections and affidavits, thus violating principles of fair procedure and proper legal process (!) .
The court held that the order was made in violation of procedural requirements and lacked proper evidentiary support, warranting its quashing and the remand of the proceedings for proper adjudication, including consideration of objections and additional evidence (!) .
The court noted that exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and should only be invoked in cases of clear procedural irregularities or jurisdictional errors, which was applicable here due to the fundamental procedural deficiencies identified (!) .
No order as to costs was made given the peculiar circumstances of the case (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case, please let me know.
( 1 ) BY this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant assails the order of the Competent Authority, under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956, hereinafter called the Act : by which the authority granted permission to the landlady, respondent No. 1 herein, to institute proceedings for his eviction.
( 2 ) THE landlady sought permission under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act from the Competent Authority to institute proceedings for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the grounds that the premises, which had been let out for a residential purpose was being misused for a commercial purpose, that the tenant had acquired alternative accommodation in Wazirpur Colony for his residence : that the tenant had "deserted the premises" for the last over 6 months ; and that the tenant had unauthorisedly sublet or parted with the possession of the premises. The application was resisted on behalf of the tenant and it was contended that the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and that the tenant was using the premises partly for the purpose of his business and partly for residence and that he and his wife were residing in the premises. It was further alleged that the premises in Wazirpur Colony had been taken on rent by the tenant s son, Amrik Singh who was residing there with his family and brothers. The allegations of subletting and parting with possession were denied. The tenant sought the protection of the authority on the ground that the monthly income of the tenant varies between Rs. 400 and Rs. 500.
( 3 ) IN the course of the proceedings, the Authority appointed, at the instance of the landlady a local Commissioner and directed him to proceed immediately to the demised premises and to the Wazirpur Premises and to report as to who were in occupation of the two. The local Commissioner submitted his report, according to which he first visited the demised premises and recorded the statement of certain persons including one found present there with a view to verify as to who were residing in the said premises and to what use the said premises was being put. It is further made out that apart from recording the statements, the local Commissioner also inspected the premises and found that, except a small room in the verandah and kitchen in the court-yard, the rest of the premises was being used for storage of old truck tyres. It was further made out that having regard to the type of utensils lying in a portion, which was not being used for storage, and the extent of the accommodation it could be inferred that "no man of status or even a middle class person" could possibly be residing there. It was further reported that one Atabullah was residing there with his son and was working at the shop of the tenant. The Commissioner concluded that the tenant could not be residing in the premises in dispute. It was further pointed out that neither the tenant nor any member of his family was present at the premises when the spot was inspected but while the Commissioner was there, a lady, who claimed to be the wife of the tenant, was brought there. The Commissioner then went to inspect the Wazirpur premises and found it to be a well furnished house and reported that on his enquiry in the locality, he was told that the tenant was residing there with his son, Amrik Singh. The Commissioner, however, pointed out that the persons who gave this information "did not agree to get their statement recorded". The Commissioner also mentioned that while he was at this premises, a lady by name Paramjit Kaur came there claiming to be the wife of Amrik Singh. The report concludes as under :
"from this, I conclude that Harbhajan Singh is residing at No. 1-112 Wazirpur Colony, Delhi with his son. "objections were filed to this report on behalf of the tenant, with a view to rebut the allegations of the landlady and the finding of the Commissioner, the tenant filed affidavits
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
