JOGINDER SINGH Vs. K C JOHOREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders of the Financial Commissioner and Competent Authority (Slum) dated 29th April, 1974 and 6th February, 1973 respectively, declining to grant permission for the institution of the suit or order for eviction of respondent No. 3 from the premises bearing municipal No. 2209, Shankar Gali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner and respondent No. 3 is his tenant in the said premises. The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement ond Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to institute a suit or proceedings for obtaining a decree or order for eviction of respondent No. 3 on various grounds. The main grounds being ; (a) the premises in question was let out for the purpose of residence but the same had been converted by the said respondent into business premises by using the same for the purpose of a milk dairy without the written consent of the petitioner, (b) the said respondent has built his own house in Krishna Nagar, Shahdara, (e) the premises in question is required bonafide by the petitioner for the residence of himself and his dependents, who were living in a one room rented house in a condition of slums with a large family and (d) respondent No. 3 is a well to do person and his eviction from the premises in question will not result in creation of any slums.

(3.) Respondent No. 3 contesting the application, denied that the premises in question were let out for residential purposes. According to him these were let out to him by the previous owner for dairy purposes and had been used as such for the last about 20 years continuously under a licence issued by the Municipal Corporation. As regards the property at Krishna Nagar he stated in the first instance that he was not the sole owner of the said residential house but had only a share in the said ancestral house. He pleaded that bis having only a share therein could not affect his tenancy of the premises in question let out to him for commercial purpose or render him liable for eviction. Subsequently, with the permission of the competent authority respondent No. 3 led additional evidence to prove that the house at Krishna Nagar belonged to his mother only. He further stated that he was the only earning member of the family, earning about Rs. 300.00 per month, hardly sufficient for his - family of 7 members to make bath ends meet and on his eviction it would not be possible for him to get another accommodation for his business and the creation of another slum would be compulsive.