V. S. Deshpande J.

( 1 ) CAN the High Court. acting under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution review a finding of fact by a quasi-judicial Tribunal ? If so, what types of findings of fact and on what grounds? What is the legal theory of such judicial review ? These are some of the interesting questions raised by the otherwise simple facts of this case.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the tenant of house No. 1255, Gali Jaman Weli, Kalan Mahal, Delhi, situated in a slum area of which the respondents 2 to 5 are the landlords. The landlords obtained an order for the eviction of the tenant from the above premises under the Delhi Bent Control Act, 1958. In view of section 19 (1) (b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) however such an order of eviction could not be executed by the landlords except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority under the Act. The landlords, therefore, applied under section 19 (3) of Act to the competent authority for such permission. The decision of the application by the competent authority had to be governed by the statutory standard laid down in section 19 (4) (a) which is, therefore, reproduced below :-

"19. (4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub-section (3), the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, namely :- "whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted,"

( 3 ) THE case of the lanclords was that the tenant was in possession of means to obtain alternative accommodation. His own monthly income was Rs, 100. 00 but his sons and grandsons lived and messed with him and thus constituted one family. The total income of all the members of the family was not less than Rs. 1500. 00 per month.

( 4 ) THE defence of the tenant was that he was an aged man of 90 years who had retired long ago and was not getting any pension. He had thus no income at all. The total income of the members of his family was Rs. 460. 00 per month. On this income a falmily of 31 members had to be supported. The tenant was thus obviously not in possession of means to find alternative accommodation if evicted from the premises. The competent authority observed that the size of the family of the tenant was 31 members which was established from the copies of the ration cards on record. It further observed that the size of the family was also not challenged by the landlords It concluded, therefore, that a sum of Rs. 460. 00 per month was simply not enough to maintain such an alarmingly large family and the tenant could not, therefore, acquire alternative accommodation if evicted. The permission was therefore, refused to the landlords.

( 5 ) IN an appeal filed under section 20 of the Act the Financial Commissioner acting for the Administrator pointed out that in calculating the income of certain members of the tenant s family, the competent authority had made a mislake and on agreed calculation the total income of the tenant s family came to not less than Rs. 725. 00 per month as per the admission of the tenant himself The learned Financial Commissioner came to the following conclusion on this finding :-

"with nearly Rs. 100. 00 per month available for the respondent (tenant) to find an alternative accommodation outside a slum area. I accordingly consider the respondent to be a person of means whose eviction from the demised tenanted premises would not entail his necessarily have to create an alternative slum and this being so, I accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the competent authority and hereby award permission to the appellants to proceed with the execution of the decree obtained by them. against the respondent, if they so deem necessary and if it be competent in law".

( 7 ) THE tenant has challenged the validity of the above-mentioned order of the Financial Commissioner mainly on the ground that the finding that an income of Rs. 725. 00 per m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document