NANAK CHAND Vs. MAHABIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petition assails the scope of order of remand made by the Financial Commissioner on 7th January, 1972, while disposing of Appeal No. 437 of 1971, which had been filed under Section 20 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereafter called "the Act"). The circumstances which may be noticed are that Maya Das respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 19 of the Act for permission to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner. The application so filed was dismissed by the competent authority. In appeal it was urged that opportunity had not been given to the landlord to file affidavits in rebuttal of those filed by the tenant. It was urged that it stood established from the record that on the date of the application filed under Section 19 of the Act i.e., on 15th September, 1970. the present petitioner's son Virender Kumar was living with him and his income Was available to the tenant for finding alternative accommodation. It was emphasised that the competent authority had acted illegally in not considering Virender Kumar's income as the part of the income of bis father who was the tenant for determining whether he had the means or not to find alternative accommodation. It was submitted that the alleged shifting of Virender Kumar from the concerned premises on 1st August, 1971. was an event which took place after the filing of the application under Sec. 19 of the Act and as such could not be taken into consideration. The Financial Commissioner noticed the averments in the affidavits filed by the parties and came to the conclusion that Virender Kumar had been receiving a gross salary of Rs. 910.00 per month including Rs. 60.00 as conveyance allowance. In those circumstances the impugned order was passed to the effect that the competent authority may on remand determine as to what were the means of the tenant as on the date of the presentation of the application under Section 19 of the Act for finding alternative accommodation.

(2.) In my view the direction contained in the impugned order ignores the intendment in Section 19 (4) of the Act. The provision is:

(3.) Mr. Amarjit Singh, appearing for the petitioner, places reliance on the following observation made by Rangarajan, J., in his judgment dated the 21st of September, 1971, by which Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 124 of 1971 was disposed of: