OM PARKASH Vs. HANUMAN PERSHAD GENERIWALA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made under Section 113 C.P.C. by a Subordinate Judge, Delhi on the question as to whether the provision of Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') are valid or not.

(2.) The plaintiff claims to be a tenant of a portion of the premises No. 1, Raj Narain Road, Civil Lines, Delhi under defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. A suit was filed by him being Suit No. 851 of 1972 for a permanent injunction. It was claimed in the suit that a decree for perpetual injunction may be passed in his favour and against the defendant-Corporation restraining the latter from taking any steps in demolishing any part of the premises which was in the occupation of the plaintiff. The contention raised in the suit was that the provisions of Section 343 of the Act violated Articles 14, 19 and 20 of the Constitution. The contentions raised in the plaint were rebutted by the Corporation in the written statement filed by it. It was specifically stated that the provisions of Section 343 were in no way ultra vires.

(3.) Having heard the arguments on behalf of the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that prima facie the provisions of Section 343 were ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution. He accordingly made a reference under Section 113 C.P.C. to this Court.