Prakash Narain, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 by which respondent No. 2 herein has been granted permission to file a petition for eviction against the petitioners herein before the Rent Controller, Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 (landlord) filed an application before the Competent Authority on June 4, 1971 for permission to evict the petitioners herein (tenants) from the premises comprising of a shop bearing No. 272 in Katra Pyare Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi of which petitioner No. 1 is a tenant under respondent No. 2. The application for permission set out the various grounds for eviction which were available to respondent No. 2, namely, non-payment of arrears of rent, sub-letting, substantial damage caused to the property and closure of business. According to respondent No. 2 petitioner No. 1 was a person of substantial means and his eviction would not create slums. This application was resisted by petitioner No. 1 on various grounds but it was admitted that petitioner No. 1 was residing at Jaipur where he was running a joint Hindu family business which was running at a loss. With regard to the shop it was contended that he was carrying on the business of cloth commission agency in the said shop under the name and style of M/s Doonger Mal Kishan Lal. It was also averred that his business was running at a loss and he had a large family. In these circumstances if he is evicted be was bound to create slum.

( 3 ) THE Competent Authority came to the conclusion that petitioner No. I had shifted from Delhi to Jaipur and was not carrying on business here. In any case, no cogent evidence was led by petitioner No. 1 that he was carrying on business at Delhi. In the circumstances it was not necessary to discuss the status of petitioner No. 1

( 4 ) MR. Arun Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that the order of the Competent Authority is liable to be set aside as he has failed to determine the only point that he was required to determine in proceedings under section 19 of the Slum Act. It was contended that shifting of petitioner No. 1 to Jaipur and his having a business there was no relevant consideration for granting permission to respondent No. 2 to file an eviction petition against petitioner No. 1. My attention was invited to a decision of this Court in C. R. Abrol v. Administrator under the Slum Areas C. W. 911 of 1969, decided on May 4, 1970. It was held in this case that in the absence of any rules made under section 19 (4) of the Slum Act only two considerations have been specified to be taken into account by the Competent Authority ; namely, (a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenants would be available to him if he were evicted and (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of slum areas. The two considerations were held to be alternative and not cumulative. Mr. Arun Kumar urged that inasmuch as section 19 (4) of the Act has been held to be mandatory and exhaustive in the case of C. R. Abrol and others and the Competent Authority has in so many words refused to determine the question of the status of the tenant the order is vitiated. Further, it was not within the competence of the Competent Authority to base his finding on the respondent not being in possession of the premises and hiving shifted his business to Jaipur. There is force in what Mr. Arun Kumar has contended.

( 5 ) MR. J. B Goel appearing on behalf of the landlord has rested his case on certain observations made in a single bench decision of this Court in Said-Ud-Din v. Mahabir Singh. That was a case in which the tenant had challenged the order of permission granted to the landlord on the ground that the finding of fact was based on no evidence at all and, in any case, the finding was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document