MOHINDER SINGH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the legal basis of the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice which requires that a person must be given a fair opportunity of answering the case against him before he is deprived of his liberty or property ? This basic question arises for consideration in the following circumstances :

(2.) . Though the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, enables a landlord to apply for the eviction of his tenant on any of the grounds sec out therein, the, amendment made by Act 43 of 1964 to section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Glearnace) Act, 1955, (hereinafter called the Stums Act) prescribes a condition precedent to the making of such application in sub-sections (1) (a) and (3) of section 19 in the following words:-

(3.) . The respondent landlord Shanti Devi applied to the competent Authority under section 19 (2) of the Slums Act for permission to institute proceeding against her tenant Mohinder Singh for eveiction. The Competent Authority passed an order dated 23-rd August. 1969 granting such permission to the landlord ex-parte against the tenant. The landlord Instituted a proceeding for the evelction of the tenant before the Rent Controller under the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. But subsequently on 5 May, 1970 the Competent Authority set aside the said ex-parte order granting permission on the ground that the tenant had not been served with the notice of the proceeding before it. The landlord did not challenge the validity of the order dated 5 May, 1970 by which the Competent Authority set aside the ex-parte order granting permission previously. The tenant, therefore, urged before the Rent Controller that the application for his eviction filed by the landlord could not be proceded with as the permission of the Competent Authority on which it was based had ceased to exist in view of the order passed by the Competent Authority on 5 May, 1970. The Controller, however, rejected the contention of the terant and held that the ex-parte permission which had been granted by the Competent Authority validly enabled the landlord to file the application for the eviction of the tenant before the Rent Controller. As the proceeding for the eviction having been validly instituted, the subsequent order of the Competent Authority passed on 5 May, 1970 had no effect on the institution of the proceeding for eviction. The permission which had been previously granted did not cease to exist because of the order dated 5 May, 1970 passed by the Competent Authority. The Controller held that despite the order dated 5th May, 1970 passed by the Competent Authority the landlord was entitled to proceed with the proceeding for eviction of the tenant. The application of the tenant was, therefore, dismissed by the Controller. In the first appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, the decision of the Controller was upheld. Hence this second appeal by the tenant.