MANDIR DASS JAIN Vs. P R VARSHNEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by a tenant, Mandir Dass Jain, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that the order, dated 15th September, 1971, of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (respondent No. 1) granting permission to the landlord Phool Chand Jain, respondent No. 2, to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner (tenant), be quashed. Phool Chand Jain filed an application under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act) seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against his tenaant, Mandir Dass Jain(petitioner herein), resspect of a room in premises No. 2593, situated at Peepal Wali Gali, Dharampura Delhi, on the grounds of non-payment of rent from 4th Novern- ber, 1970, personal bona fide requirement for occupation as residence and misuser of the premises. It appears that the room in question has one kotka inside and a Chabutra in front of it on the ground floor of the aforesaid premises. He also alleged that the tenant has been carrying on his business in shop No. 3619, Mehar Mandir, Masjid Khajoor, Delhi, that he is a man of means earning more than Rs. 2,000.00 per month, and that he would not create any slum in case of eviction.

(2.) . The tenant contested the application. He admilted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but denied the grounds mentioned by the landlord for eviction. He pleaded in his written statement that he is a very poor man and has been doing a very small business of selling curd and lassi in the aforesaid shop, that he has not engaged any assistant or servant in his shop, that he has not been maintaining any account book or stock register, that his income from the said business has been only about Rs. 250.00 per month, that he has no other source of income, and that he will create a slum if evicted.

(3.) . The landlord filed a replication reiterating the allegations in his application, and further alleging that the tenant has four sons, who were all grown up and carrying on business along with the father, that one of his sons is employed in the Delhi Municipal Corporation and posted at Octroi Post, and that the said son has been earning more than Rs. 500.00 per month.