KIRATH CHAND Vs. P R VARSHNEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under the impugned order dated 2nd September 1969, the Competent Authority granted permission to the respondents (landlords) to evict the petitioner (tenant) under section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956. Sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Act requires that the competent authority shall take into account the following factors, while granting or refusing to grant permission :-

(2.) The property bearing Municipal No. 2678, Gali Anarwali, Kinari Bazar, Delhi, which was previously owned by Raj Dulari, had been let out to the petitioner giving him a right to live in a portion of the said house and to sub-let the remaining portions. Shrimati Raj Dulari sold the said house to the respondents on 8th March 1956. Since the respondents required the house for their own occupation the tenant surrendered the rest of the portions other than a room on the second floor of the said house. In respect of the said room there was a fresh tenancy from respondents 2 to 7 at Rs. 15.00 P.M., on the terms and conditions mentioned in the lease deed dated 24th May 1956. It was agreed between the parties that when the landlords delivered possession of a room and a kitchen on the first floor plus a tin-shed on the third floor to the tenant the latter would exchange the tenancy of the said room with the portion so delivered to him. In accordance with this arrangement the tenant surrendered the aforesaid room on the second floor and got a room and a kitchen on the first floor alongwith a tin shed on the third floor, for a monthly rent of Rs. 21.00. In respect of this an agreement (translation of which is Annexure A to the writ petition) was entered into on 24th May 1959.

(3.) It was also stated in the affidavit of Shri Hundi Lal that Shant Prakash was a partner in the firm Messrs. Shanti Lal & brothers, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, and out of the business of distribution of copper and enamelled wire Shant Prakash was getting Rs. 1500.00 per month as his share of profit from this firm. The fact that Shant Prakash was a partner in the firm Shanti Lal & Brothers was itself denied in the affidavits of the tenant (Kirath Chand) and also of Shant Prakash.