SAT PAL Vs. SUDERSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are tenants of premies situated in a slum area belonging to the respondents landlords. An order for eviction against the tenants was obtained by the landlords on 29th August, 1967. This order is not executable unless the permission of the Competent Authority for its execution is obtained under section 19(1)(b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). In granting or refusing such permission, the Competent Authority has to take into account under section 19(4)(a) of the Act whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted.

(2.) In the first application to obtain permission under section 19 (1) (b) the landlords, inter alia, stated that the tenant Sat Pal (appellant No. 1) was doing the work of a contract along with one Shri Vidya Parkash and was earning Rs. 1800.00 per month. But the defence of Sat Pal was that he was only an employee of M/s. Bharat Agencies on Rs. 125.00 per month. This defence was believed by the Competent Authority Shri D. K. Podder who found that the total income of all the persons living in the premises along with the tenants was Rs. 722.00 while the number of persons to be maintained on that income was 19. The tenants were not, therefore, in a position to find alternative accommodation within their means if they were evicted. He, therefore, dismissed the application of the landlords on 5th September, 1970 as per Annexure A. In the appeal against this order under section 30 of the Act it was urged before the Financial Commissioner that in addition to the basic salary, the tenant Sat Pal must be receiving some allowances and his income was, therefore, held by the appellate authority to be Rs. 200.00per month. The appellate authority was of the view that the total earnings of the people living in the premises were Rs. 1000.00. The tenants could not, therefore, be held to be able to find alternative accommodation within their means as such alternative accommodation would require payment of rent of Rs, 250.00 or so which would be 25 per cent of their income. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed on 21st October, 1970.

(3.) The landlords filed a second application for permission under section 19(l)(b) on 22nd December, 1970. The tenants contended that the second application was barred by res judicata in view of the dismissal of the first one. The landlords replied that the bar of res judicata did not apply in view of changed circumstances. The Competent Authority Shri P.R. Vershneya appointed a commissioner for local investigation who reported that the premises of Bharat Agencies, the alleged employers of Sat Pal, had been closed down for a long time and that one Chanan Shah told him that Sat Pal was carrying business in partnership with Chanan Shah. Sat Pal filed an affidavit that he was not a partner of Chanan Shah but was serving Bharat Valve Manufacturing Company at a new address. But one Jagmohan Mehra, partner of Messrs. Ram Nath Mehra & Sons, filed an affidavit that he gave earth excavation and cartage work to Chanan Shah on the condition that the tenant Sat Pal also undertook the responsibility of proper fulfilment of the work allotted to Chanan Shah. Shri Varshneya, therefore, inferred that Sat Pal was carrying on business in partnership with Chanan Shah and had tried to conceal his income from the partnership. He, therefore, discarded his defence and believed the allegations of the landlords and held that the tenant Sat Pal was earning more than Rs. 1000.00 from his contract business. The total income of the occupants of the premises thus came to more than Rs. 1900.00. The tenants were, therefore, in a position to find alternative accommodation within their means if evicted. He, therefore, granted the permission to the landlords to execute the order for eviction on 11th Jure, 1971. This order is impugned in the present writ petition on various grounds. But Shri N.D. Bali, learned counsel of the petitioners, concentrated on the following two grounds of attack, namely:-