KAPUR CHAND Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Competent Authority dated September 30, 1970 granting permission to respondent No. 1 landlord to file an application for petitioner's eviction from a premises in his occupation as a tenant at a rent ofRs. 18.00 per month.

(2.) The case of the landlord in his application under sec. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, before the Competent Authority was that the petitioner was a man of status and could secure an alternative accomodation if evicted from the premises. The Competent Authority after hearing the parties and taking into account the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sufficient means and, therefore, granted the permission.

(3.) Pt. Kailash Narain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged thai these findings of the Competent Authority are against record and based on in-admissible evidence. According to the landlord the petitioner owned a house at Seelampur, Jaffarbad, another plot at Adarsh Nagar and a lucrative business, that he was carrying on as a 'meenakar' in Delhi. The petitioner denied all these allegations though he admitted that he was carrying on business as meena kar but stated that his income from the business was hardly Rs. 5O to Rs. 100.00 per month. To substantiate his contention that the petitioner owned the house at Seelampur, Jaffarabad, the respondent produced documentary evidence to show that the peliti -mer did own this house which was the subject matter of some acquisition proceedings. The petitioner thereupon admitted that he owned this house but urged that the same had since been sold by him to Shri Shambhu Dayal for Rs. 2,000.00. The Competent Authority, after appraisal of the evidence, did not accept this explanation of the petitioner and did not accept the story of sale. In regard to the plot at Adarsh Nagar. it transpired on evidence that thin plot was in the name of the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that this had also been sold for Rs. 3,00O.00 because the petitioner was in urgent need of money, and the sale proceeds received were spent in payment of his dcbta. The Competent Authority did not accept this explanation of the petitioner also. No evidence was produced before the Competent Authority to show that there were in fact any debts due from the petitioner. As for the income from the shop, the petitioner claimed, as stated earlier, that he was earning Rs. 80 to Rs. 100.00 per month only. No cogent evidence was, however, produced by him before the Competent Authority in support of this statement. This was a fact within the special knowledge of the petitioner and he was bound to substantiate his allegations. Shri Mela Ram, the learned counsel for the respondent, has drawn my attention to the fact that in two raids recently conducted by the Customs Department on November 20, 1970 and January 6, 1971, a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 and some gold on one occassion and Rs. 6,000.00 on another occasion were recovered from the shop of the petitioner. In the reply filed, the petitioner has admitted the recovery of Rs. 5,000.00 and Rs. 6,300.00 but has urged that the money recovered Was actually not his. The Competent Authority has also made reference to the report of a Local Commissioner appointed by him during the proceedings at the instance of respor dent landlord for the purpose of inspecting the shop. The Local Commissioner visited the shop and found four workmen actually working on the shop The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urged that reference to this report of the Local Commissioner by the Competent Authority was illegal and unwarranted because he said that objections to this report of the local Commissioner had been filed but the Local Commissioner was never examined by the Competent Authority or allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner. But even if the report of the Local Commissioner be ignored there is other evidence on the record which supports the finding of the Competent Authority. There is an affidavit of one Shri Gopal Singh who has sworn that the petitioner had his goldsmith shop in Maliwara where he employed five persons. To the same effect is the affidavit of Om Parkash son of Nathu Ram. The conclusion drawn by the Competent Authority is thus fully borne out from the record. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact arrived at by the Competent Authority. High Court would be loathe to interfere in exercise of its special jurisdiction under this Article even with an illegal order of quasi-judicial authority where the illegality has not cautsd any substantial in justice, (see Hasara Singh Vs. The Punjab State 1969 P.L.R. 534). The grevance of the petitioner, therefore, that the Competent Authority has wrongly referred to the report of the Local Commissioner, even if assumed to bo correct, does not justly interference by this Court.