LAWS(DLH)-2012-5-402

MOHINDER MALHOTRA Vs. RAMESH MAHESHWARI

Decided On May 21, 2012
MOHINDER MALHOTRA Appellant
V/S
RAMESH MAHESHWARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is dated 14.3.2012; this is an order passed by the Sidhartha Sharma, Competent Authority under the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").

(2.) RECORD shows that Ramesh Maheshwari had filed an eviction petition under Section 19 of the said Act seeking permission of the Competent Authority to initiate eviction proceedings against the respondent Mohinder Malhotra (petitioner before this Court) for his eviction qua the premises comprising of one shop forming part of property bearing No.4659, Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi. Averment was that the property was located in a slum area; parties share relationship of landlord and tenant; rate of rent is Rs.300/-; permission be accorded to the petitioner to initiate eviction proceedings against his tenant. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner was represented before the Competent Authority. His contention was that Baldev Raj Malhotra was the original tenant; after his death he has been termed as an "unauthorized occupant" and as such there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. This is also the vehement argument which has been urged before this Court. The tenant had made a bald submission that he is not financially sound but no such document had been brought on record to show that his income is meager and he is not in a position to afford an alternate accommodation elsewhere. Contention of the tenant was that he is earning Rs.8000/- per month and per contra submission of the landlord was that the tenant was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. No document has been placed on record by the tenant to substantiate this submission either. Court had returned an adverse inference for not producing the best evidence qua this position as these the facts could only be known to the tenant himself. It was in this background the application of the petitioner under Section 19 of the said Act had been allowed.

(3.) THIS petition is an abuse of the process of the court. Dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.