In proceedings under section 19 of the Slum Areas Act, the burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish insufficient means to acquire alternative accommodation. The landlord must allege and provide evidence of the tenant's sufficient means.

( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by a tenant, Mandir Dass Jain, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order, dated 15th September, 1971, of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (respondent No. 1) granting permission to the landlord Phool Chand Jain, respondent No. 2, to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner (tenant), be quashed. Phool Chand Jain filed an application under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act) seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against his tenaant, Mandir Dass Jain (petitioner herein), resspect of a room in premises No. 2593, situated at Peepal Wali Gali, Dharampura Delhi, on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 4th Novern- ber, 1970, personal bona fide requirement for occupation as residence and misuser of the premises. It appears that the room in question has one kotka inside and a Chabutra in front of it on the ground floor of the aforesaid premises. He also alleged that the tenant has been carrying on his business in shop No. 3619, Mehar Mandir, Masjid Khajoor, Delhi, that he is a man of means earning more than Rs. 2,000. 00 per month, and that he would not create any slum in case of eviction.

( 2 ). The tenant contested the application. He admilted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but denied the grounds mentioned by the landlord for eviction. He pleaded in his written statement that he is a very poor man and has been doing a very small business of selling curd and lassi in the aforesaid shop, that he has not engaged any assistant or servant in his shop, that he has not been maintaining any account book or stock register, that his income from the said business has been only about Rs. 250. 00 per month, that he has no other source of income, and that he will create a slum if evicted.

( 3 ). The landlord filed a replication reiterating the allegations in his application, and further alleging that the tenant has four sons, who were all grown up and carrying on business along with the father, that one of his sons is employed in the Delhi Municipal Corporation and posted at Octroi Post, and that the said son has been earning more than Rs. 500. 00 per month.

( 4 ). In his order, dated 15th September, 1971, the Competent authority observed that the ground of non-payment of rent was not available to the landlord as the arrears of rent had been paid, and that the grounds of bona fide requirement for residence and misuser of the premises are to be urged before the Controller and are not relevant in the application under section 19 of the Slum Areas Act. As regards the question whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted, the Competent Authority held that the tenant s eldest son Jinender Kumar, who is employed in the Delhi Municipal Corporation, has been living separately from his father for the last about five years, and that as such the son s income cannot be taken into account for purposes of determining the means of the tenant, Mandir Dass Jain. The Competent Authority then considered the evidence as regards the income of the tenant himself, and pointed out that he was admittedly dealing in three items, namely, Lassi kacha butter of lassi, and curd, that his version that he has been earning only Rs. 250. 00 from all the three items is not believable as that would mean that he has been getting only Rs. 2. 66 per item per day, that even if it is true that he has not been maintaining account books in respect of his business, he could have produced evidence regarding the quantity of milk purchased by him per day on an average for preparing the three items mentioned above by filing the affidavits of the milk suppliers who supplied milk to him, but he has failed to do so, and that the tenant has thus failed to discharge the onus pl