RAMESHWAR DAYAL Vs. RAM AVTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords and the petitioner is a tenant of the premises-house No. 1232, Chowk Shah Mubarak, Delhi. The landlords applied to Respondent No. 3 Competent authority under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 as amended in 1964 for permission to evict the tenant from the premises, inter alia, on the ground that the tenant is not living in the premises for over six months prior to the filling of the application and that he has acquired vacant possession of another residence, house No. 2372, Gali Ghanta Kakwan, Farash Khana, Delhi. On 24-9-1968, the Competent authority directed notice of the application to be sent to the tenant by registered post. The registered envelop containing the notice was returned to the Competent authority by the post-office with the following remarks, namely:- (a) Not met 10-10-68, 11-10-68, 12-10-68, 14-10-68 and 15-10-1968; and (b) A. D. Refused 16-10-1968.

(2.) On 22-11-1968, the Competent authority observed that the registered envelop had been returned with the remark that it was refused and, therefore, passed an order for publication as well as affixation of the notice on the spot. Accordingly, we find a copy of the notice on the record of the Competent authority containing report of service by affixation attested by two witnesses. We also find that a copy of the news-paper containing the publication of the notice was sent to the tenant under certificate of posting. The Certificate of posting is also on record. On 16-1-1969, the Competent authority held that the notice had been published and also had been affixed on the spot and, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the tenant. The Competent authority granted permission to the landlord to evict the tenant by the order dated 25-3-1969, a certified copy of which is at Annexure F to the writ petition.

(3.) The tenant subsequently made an application to the Competent authority, copy of which is at Annexure A to the writ petition, slating that the reports on the registered envelop were false and that he had never refused to accept service of the notice. He, therefore, prayed that the ex-parte order passed against him and also the permission granted to the landlords on 26th March 1969 be set aside and the tenant be given an opportunity to contest the petition. The Competent authority rejected this application for setting aside the ex-parte order on 25-8-1969 by an order, a copy of which is at Annexure C to the writ petition. The appeal of the tenant against this order was also dismissed by the Judicial Secretary, Delhi Administration, as per Annexure E to the writ petition.