RAJ RANI Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of civil Miscellaneous (Main) Nos and 104 of 1971 since similar questions of law have arisen for decision. The petitioner, who is commin in both the petitions, has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders of the Financial Commissioner and the competent Authority (Slums), dated May, 17,1971, and March 18, 1971, respectively. She is the landlady of house No. XI 1-5720, Street No. 3, Nai Chandhrawal Kolhapur Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, which is situated in a slum area.

(2.) Civil Miscellaneous (Main) No. 103 of 1971 relates to Amar Nath, respondent, who is a tenant in a part of the said premises. The rent was originally Rs. 6 per month, but later on the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 30.48 np.er month was fixed with effect from April 7, 1965. The petitioner instituted eviction proceedings and one of the grounds was non-payment of rent. She succeeded before the Rent Control Tribunal in getting an order for eviction of the respondent. When the tenant came up in appeal to this court, it was dismissed, but at the request of the tenant's counsel two month's time was granted to vacate the premises and deliver its vacant possession to her. The tenant failed to vacate it. The petitioner approached the Competent Authority (Slums) under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'), for permission to execute the eviction order. It was averred that the tenant was a person of means and could afford to obtain alternative accommodation if he were evicted. The tenant denied the same.

(3.) The Competent Authority(Slums) found that the factum of nonpayment of rent could not be made the basis for granting permission for eviction of the tenant. The total income of the tenant was found to be about Rs. 300.00per month, and he was found to be in possession of a covered area of 280 square feet. He concluded that the tenant would not be in a position to sec ure alternative accommodation. The permission was, therefore, refused. / On appeal, the Financial Commissioner upheld the order. In his opinion, 35 passe per quare foot per month of the covered area was the rent at which alternative accommodation could be had and the person was not expected to spend more than 12% of his income on rent. He thus found that the tenant could not afford to pay Rs. 98 per month as rent for alternative accommo- dation.