MADAN LAL Vs. COMPETANT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Madan Lal, a tenant, against the judgment of v. S. Deshpande, J. in Civil Writ Petition No 97 of 1968, pronounced on April 1, 1969, dismissing the said writ petition and confirming an order, dated December 5, 1967, passed by the Competent Authority, Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) (hereinafter referred to as the "Slum Areas Act"), and whereby permission was granted to the landlord. Dr. R.v. Singh, to execute an order of eviction obtained by him against the tenant under proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(2.) The appellant herein was a tenant since 1943 in respect of shop No. 896, in Ward No. IV, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Dr. R.v. Singh was the landlord. Alleging that the tenant had sublet the shop and had parted with possession of it, the landlord filed a petition on July 28, 1962, before the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, praying that the tenant may be ordered to be evicted under proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant resisted the petition and contended that the premises had not been sublet by him, and that he had not parted with possession thereof. By an order, dated May 20, 1965, the Additional Rent Controller held that the tenant had parted with possession of the shop and sublet the same at first to one Suraj Parkash, a tea vendor who ran a tea shop for three or four months, and then to Nanu Ram, father of Suraj Parkash, who was sitting in the shop, making ready-made garments and selling the same. The Additional Rent Controller, on the basis of his finding, passed an order for the eviction of the tenant under proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, but it was dismissed by the Tribunal on December 10, 1965.

(3.) The landlord then applied to the Competent Authority, on February 5, 1966, under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956, as amended by Act 43 of 1964, praying for permission to execute the order of eviction against the tenant. He stated in the application that the permises in question was not a dwelling house and sub-tenants have been unlawfully carrying on their business in the said premises, and that the tenant along with his family was residing at Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, and, therefore, the question of creating a slum on his eviction did not arise at all. The tenant filed a reply in opposition to the application. In the said reply, he denied that he had parted with possession of the shop or sublet the same, and pleaded that he himself had been in possession and occupation of the premises, that Suraj Parkash was formerly a servant of his and was no longer working with him, that he had started the work of ready-made clothes and Nanu Ram was a tailor sitting on the Chabutra of the shop for stitching readymade clothes as an employee on daily wages according to his work, that the said work of ready-made clothes was his own and the shop had been in his actual possession and occupation, and that no other person had any concern whatsoever with the same. He added that it was absolutely wrong and false to say that the shop was ever sublet to Suraj Parkash, that Suraj Parkash used to work only as an employee of his about five or six years ago, that he had stopped the work due to the losses and dispensed with the services of Suraj Parkash, and that he subsequently started the work of ready-made clothes which too proved to be unprofitable and he, therefore, had to stop that work also and dispense with the services of Nanu Ram by way of tailoring work. Thus, his plea was that Suraj Parkash had left his shop some five or six years ago and Nanu Ram also had since been sent away, and that at the time of the application for permission to execute the order of eviction, he himself was in possession and occupation of the shop. He also alleged in his reply I that he had big family consisting of himself, his wife, and five daughters, that he was extremely poor and used to maintain his family with the little income which he used to derive from his work in the suit premises, and that he had no source of income and was consequently bound to create a slum in case he was evicted from the suit premises. He also filed an application on January 9, 1966, stating that he had been in occupation of the suit premises and doing his printing work in it, and praying that the premises may be got inspected.