RAJ RANI Vs. MOOLAN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (landlady) ha,d filed a peti- tion to evict the late Chetan Dass on the ground of personal necessity and non-payment of rent in April, 1965. The application was dis- missed on 15-3-1966, but the landlady had filed an appeal. During the pendency of that appeal Chetan Das died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal was accepted on 9-3-1967 and eviction was ordered on the ground of personal necessity. The second appeal preferred to this Court was dismissed on 10-3-1970 two months time having been granted for vacating the property.

(2.) An application was presented to the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 on 5-5-1970. The same was dismissed on 13-3-1971 on the ground that the respondents could not get alternative accommodation. An appeal which was preferred to the Financial Commissioner by the landlady was also dismissed on 17-6-1971.

(3.) Though a number of points were taken in the petition the main argument on behalf of the petitioner was that the application to the Competent Authority for permission to evict the respondents was itself unnecessary and was misconceived. This stand has been explained in the following manner: the respondents who were impleaded as . Rs of Chetan Dass in the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal were themselves not tenants of the property since Chetan Dass himself must, by reason of the order of eviction that was ultimately passed with his- Rs on record, be deemed to have been a statutory tenant having no estate to assign or transfer in respect of such tenancy and which also did not devolve on any one on his death. For this reason it is contended that the persons who were brought on record as L. Rs to Chetan Dass were not tenants of the property and the question whether alternative accommodation within their means would be available to them if they were evicted did not fall for consideration before the Com- petent Authority. It is further contended that if this is the true legal position the mere fact that an application was made under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act for permission to evict the L. Rs. of Chetan Dass who were impleaded in the appeal could not confer jurisdiction on the Competent Authority if there was none and that the petitioner would not be precluded from showing such want of jurisdiction on the part of the Competent Authority des- pite the petitioner having invoked his jurisdiction.