MADANLAL GUPTA Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner is calling in question an order passed by the High Court in a Revision Petition arising out of a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller refused to grant leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent for his bona fide need. The question as to the extent of accommodation, the requirement of the respondent is dependent on actual facts arising in the case. inasmuch as the Rent Controller as well as the High Court have examined the matter and concluded against the petitioner, we fail to understand as to how we can interfere with the decision made by the High Court affirming the order of the Rent Controller.

(2.) However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon two decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran, [jt 2000 (3) SC 397], and Liaq Ahmed and Ors. v. Shri Ha- beeb-Ur-Rehman, [jt 2000 (5) SC 611]. Neither of these two decisions set down any principle of law so as to call for interference by us. In these two cases on the facts arising in the case certain orders have been passed by this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to raise an additional ground relying upon a letter issued by the Director (Town Planning) on 29/6/2000 that the property in question in respect of which eviction is sought for is included in the areas which have already been declared as "slum Areas" under Section 3 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. He further contended that Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 stands in the way of the landlord for evicting the tenant without obtaining previous permission in writing of the competent authority.