VIJAY PRAKASH VERMA Vs. H L SRIVASTVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks to assail the order dated 25.04.2012 of the Competent Authority (Slums). The respondent had filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') seeking permission of the Competent Authority to initiate eviction proceedings from the suit premises consisting of one room one small kitchen on the first floor of the property bearing No. 2089, Katra Gokul Shah, Kucha Aqil Khan, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. The present respondents were substituted in place of their predecessor, being his LRs. In the aforesaid application under Section 19 of the Act, the plea of the petitioner was that he is the owner/landlord of the suit premises, having purchased the same from previous owner Smt. Prakash Kaur by virtue of agreement to sell, and that there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner therein (predecessors-in-interest of the respondent), the said application was not maintainable. The Competent Authority allowed the application and granted permission to the respondent to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner. The Competent Authority recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was claiming to be the owner of the suit premises only on the basis of a photocopy of agreement to sell, which did not confer in him, any title in the suit premises, being hit by Section 17 and Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. He also recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was undisputedly a tenant under the previous owner Smt. Prakash Kaur, and that the respondent had purchased the suit premises from her by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28.09.2000. He also recorded a finding of fact that undisputedly, the petitioner was initially inducted in the suit premises as a tenant. He accordingly held that, based on preliminary enquiry, prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is established. With regard to the financial status of the petitioner, it was observed by the Competent Authority that the plea of the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month, is unbelievable and, he having not placed anything on record as regard to his financial status, it was to be presumed that he was financially well enough and shall not create any further slum, if evicted from the suit premises.

(2.) THE impugned order is assailed on the similar grounds which were taken before the Competent Authority. Various judgments have been cited to contend that the issue regarding ownership could not be decided by the Rent Controller in the eviction petition and that, if there was a dispute raised by the tenant as regard to the ownership of the property, the same was to be decided by Civil Court and not the Rent Controller and, further that till such decision of the Civil Court, the proceedings before the Rent Controller need to be stayed.

(3.) IN view of the discussion above, I do not see any reason to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution warranting the interference in the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.