BAL KISHAN Vs. P R VARSHNEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by a tenant, Bal Kishan, against an order, dated 10th August, 1971, of Shri P. R. Vershneya. Competent Authrity, Slum Areas Delhi, in case No. C-A-1(11790) of 1970, granting permission to the landlord, Mst. Bismilla Jan (respondent No. 2) under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act), to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the Competent Authority.

(2.) . Respondent No. 2 claims to be the owner and landlady of a Kothri with two doors bearing Municipal No. 1458 (new)/733(old). Ward No. III, Lambi Gali, Chhatta Abdul Razak, Phatak Habush Khan, Delhi. The petitioner is her tenant in respect ofths said Kothri on a rent of Rs. 5.00 per mensem. She filed an application before respondent No. 1 under section 19 of the Slum Areas Act alleging that the petitioner -tenant was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 85.00 upto 30th November, 1970, and that he did not pay the same inspite of repeated demands. She stated in the application that the premises in dispute was originally allotted by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in favour of late Shri Jagan Nath, father of the petitioner-tenant, as a displaced person for use as residence ; that after the death of Jagan Nath, the petitioner became the tenant in respect of the said premises ; that the petitionertenant had not been residing in the suit premises for more than six months before the date of the application, but acquired another premises, No. 1207, Bara Dari Nawab Wazir, Ward Ne. III, Phathak Habush Khan, Delhi, and had been residing therein ; that the petitioner-tenant had also sublet or parted with possession of the suit premises ; and that the premises was required bona fide by the landlady for the purpose of building or re-building or making substantial additions or alterations, and such additions or alterations could not be carried out without premises being vacated. She also alleged that the petitioner-tenant was a man of means and would not create another slum if he were evicted.

(3.) . The petitioner-tenant filed a written statement admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; but denying the grounds mentioned by the landlady in her application. He stated that he had been using the suit premises for residence as well as for non-residential, purposes and had made a bhatti for baking bananas, that premises No.1207 in Bara Dari Nawab Wazir, Delhi, was allotted by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi, to his father Jagan Nath in 1955, that the said house consisted of only one room measuring 12' x 6' and a small court-yard., and that his mother, younger brother, and two unmarried sisters have-been residing in the same. He further submitted that he is a very poorman and sells ice during the summer season and bananas during winter season, that he was hardly able to earn Rs. 4.00 to Rs. 5.00 per day which was hardly sufficient to feed himself, his wife and two children, and that he had also to give some help to his aged and widowed mother, younger brother, and two unmarried sisters. He pleaded that even if the house. No. 1207, was taken as being in his occupation as one of the legal representatives of his father, he had only a 1/6th share in that house which was valued at Rs. 3269.00 at the time of the allotment to his father, that the said share was negligible and he could neither sell the same nor occupy any distinct portion in the said house, and that he had thus per force to reside and work in the suit premises.