BADRU RAM DHANNA RAM Vs. RAM CHANDER KHIBRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question whicharises for determination in this appeal and the six otherconnected cases which have been referred to the FullBench is whether a person, against whom any decree ororder for eviction from the premises in dispute has beenobtained, is a tenant for the purpose of section 19 of theSlum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956(No. 96 of 1956) hereinafter referred to as the SlumAreas 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 othercases and the learned counsel for the parties in those caseshave confined their arguments to the legal question reproduced above.

(2.) Bardu Ram appellant in the instant appeal is theowner of house No. 11675 situated in Sat Nagar, KarolBagh, New Delhi. Ram Chander respondent was a tenantunder the appellant of one room in that house on a monthly rent of Rs. 21.00. The appellant filed an application undersection 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of1958) for eviction of the respondent from the above-mentioned room and obtained an order of eviction on 3/06/1964. The appeal of the respondent against theorder of eviction was dismissed by the Rent ControlTribunal on 23/11/1964. The premises being ina slum area, the appellant applied to the competent authority under section 19 of the Slum Areas Act for permissionto execute the order of eviction. The said applicationwas dismissed by the competent authority on 27/03/1965 on the ground that the respondent was a poorman and, if evicted, would create a slum elsewhere. On 11/04/1966 the appellant filed the suit, out of whichthe present appeal has arisen, for recovery of possessionof the room in question and Rs. 497.00 as damages for useand occupation for the period from 10/04/1965 to 31/03/1966 at the rate of Rs. 21.00 per mensem. Itwas alleged by the appellant that on the passing of theeviction order on 3/06/1964 the respondent had ceasedto be a tenant and had become a trespasser and as suchwas liable to be evicted and to pay damages for use andoccupation of the room.

(3.) The respondent denied that he had ceased to be atenant on the passing of the order of eviction and thathis possession had become unlawful. The plea of therespondent was that he continued to be a tenant of theroom in question despite the order of eviction and that hewas not liable to be dispossessed therefrom or to pay anydamages. An objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the appellant having not obtained prior permission of the competent authority as required by clause(a) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Slum AreasAct for the institution of the suit, the same was not maintainable. Another plea taken was that the civil court hadno jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions ofsection 37A of the Slum Areas Act.