NIAMAT BI Vs. S L DHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges order dated May 3, 1969 (Annexure A to the petition) passed by the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement ,and Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act'.

(2.) Ganga Bishan, respondent No. 2, filed .an application under section 19 of the Act for permission to institute proceedings for obtaining a decree or order of eviction against the petitioner from House No. 6832, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi on the ground of sub-letting, personal bona fide requirement and non-residence of the petitioner or any other member of her family in the said premises for more than six months. The petitioner contested this application. She admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but: denied the existence of any valid ground for eviction. Regarding her alleged non-residence in the said premises it was stated that she had gone to Karachi on June 5, 1965 and had returned therefrom on December 27, 1965 but otherwise has been residing all along in the said premises with her son. In a rejoinder filed by respondent No. 2 before the Competent Authority it was stated that the petitioner's husband had died in 1947 and thereafter she had re-married and her husband was running a flourishing business in Karachi where she had lived with her husband. It was also said that her son manufactured suit-cases and earned not less than Rs. 200.00 per month, that one of her brothers was earning not less than Rs. 500.00 per month from a shop at Motia Khan in which the business of dealing in motor-tyres was conducted. It was also averred that yet another brother was running a business in Bara Hindu Rao and earning Rs. 500.00 per month and that while the petitioner was away to Karachi the said premises were in occupation of persons other than herself or members of her family. The petitioner filed affidavits of Sheikh Mohd. Swalhin, Azmat Khan, Barudin alias Baboo, Mohd Ashqin, Aslamuddin besides her own. She produced her passport and the passenger's coupon issued by BOAC and some other papers. Regarding her financial status it was stated that she earned Rs. 15.00 per month. Her son's income was given as Rs. 60.00 per month and it was stated that he was employed with one Mohd. Faruq.

(3.) On the above evidence the Competent Authority held that the petitioner was a person of substantial means, particularly, as she could afford to go to Pakistan by air and live there for six months. It was also held that she had re-married and her husband was running a flourishing business at Karachi. In this view of the matter permission was granted to respondent No. 2 to take eviction proceedings against the petitioner.