CHIRANJI LAL Vs. KAILASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In ts petition the challenge is to the order dated 17th July, 1976 whereby the Competent Authority (Slum) gave permission to the respondent-landlord under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of premises No. 1571/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the said premises. On 7th August, 1974 respondent No. I had filed an application under Section 19 of, the Slum Areas Act. It was, inter alia, contended that the tenant was a teacher in the School of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and getting Rs. 650.00 per month. It was also stated that he was earning more than Rs. 200.00 per month from tuitions. Further contention of the landlord was that the tenant had a rental income of Rs. 250.00 per month and that he was a man of means and that two houses were owned by the tenant. It was specifically stated that one house in Block D Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi belonged to the tenant but was in the name of his wife as a benami.

(3.) Reply to the petition was filed. Preliminary objection was raised to the effect that earlier a similar petition had been filed and the same had been dismissed by Shri D. K.. Poddar on 22nd December, 1970. The appeal against the same was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 5th February, 1971. It was contended that on the principles of res judicata the present petition was not maintainable. On merits, the submission of the tenant was that he was not a man of status. It was stated that he was not getting Rs. 650.00 per month and nor was he earning any rental income and nor was he getting any tuition fee. Whereas in the application fixed by the landlord it had also been contended that the father of the tenant was living with him and was getting a salary of Rs. 250.00 per month from the M. C. D., in the reply the tenant stated that his father was not living with him and his income could not be taken into consideration. With regard to the ownership of the house the specific plea of the tenant was as follows :