Tenants under eviction orders maintain protection under S.19 of the Slum Areas Act, requiring necessary permissions for eviction proceedings.

1. The short question, which arises for determination in this appeal and the six other connected cases which have been referred to the Full Bench, is whether a person, against whom any decree or order for eviction from the premises In dispute has been obtained, is a tenant for the purpose of S.19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (No.96 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act). The circumstances, in which the question has arisen in the instant appeal, would be detailed hereafter. It is not necessary to give the facts of the other cases and the learned counsel for the parties in those cases have confined their arguments to the legal question reproduced above.

2. Badru Ram appellant in the instant appeal is the owner of house No.11675 situated in Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Ram Chander respondent was a tenant under the appellant of one room in that house on a monthly rent of Rs.21/-. The appellant filed an application under S.14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) for eviction of the respondent from the above mentioned room and obtained an order of eviction on June 3, 1964. The appeal of the respondent against the order of eviction was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on November 23, 1964. The premises being in a slum area the appellant applied to the competent authority under S.19 of the Slum Areas Act for permission to execute the order of eviction. The said application was dismissed by the competent authority on March 27, 1965 on the around that the respondent was a poor man and, if evicted, would create a slum elsewhere. On April 11, 1966 the appellant filed the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, for recovery of possession of the room in question and Rupees 497/- as damages for use and occupation for the period from April 10, 1965 to March 31, 1966 at the rate of Rs.21/- per mensem. It was alleged by the appellant that on the passing of the eviction order on June 3. 1964 the respondent had ceased to be a tenant and had become a trespasser and as such was liable to be evicted and to pay damages for use and occupation of the room.

3. The respondent denied that he had ceased to be a tenant on the passing of the order of eviction and that his possession had become unlawful. The plea of the respondent was that he continued to be a tenant of the room in question despite the order of eviction and that he was not liable to be dispossessed therefrom or to pay any damages. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the appellant having not obtained prior permission of the competent authority as required by Cl.(a) of sub-sec. (1) of S.19 of the Slum Areas Act for the institution of the suit, the same was not maintainable. Another plea taken was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of S.37 - A of the Slum Areas Act.

4. The trial Court held that the respondent, against whom an order of eviction had been made, ceased to be a tenant within the meaning of S.19 of the Slum Areas Act and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suit for possession against the respondent was not barred. It was further held that S.37 - A of the Slum Areas Act did not bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit. As the respondent was found to be a trespasser in occupation of the room, he was held to be liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.21/- per mensem. The trial Court accordingly awarded a decree for possession of the room in question and for recovery of Rs.497/-. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court. In second appeal the learned Single Judge held that the word "tenant" used in S.19 of the Slum Areas Act includes a person agains