GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. RAM KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, C. M. (Main) 20 of 1973, has been filed bv Sardar Gurcharan Singh under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondents are (1) Shrimati Ram Kaur and (2) Shri H. C. Arora, who is the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act).

(2.) Respondent 1 is the owner of a house at Ariun Nagar. Kotia Mubarakpur. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of two rooms, a verandah and a kitchen with common bath room and latrine on a monthly rent of Rs. 70.00 Per month. Respondent 1 applied to respondent 2 on February 10, 1971. under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act for permission to institute proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from the aforesaid tenancy premises on the ground that the said premises was required bona fide bv her for occupation as residence, by herself. The petitioner contested the application, inter alia. denying the factum of the alleged bona fide need, and submitting that he had been occupying the premises for the last ten years, and that respondent 1 had been making attempts to charge enhanced rent and had been harassing the petitioner by reporting to the police, etc.

(3.) Respondent 1 stated in her application before the Competent Authority, inter alia, that the family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his sister-in-law and a nephew only. that he was drawing about Rs. l,200.00 per month as his pay, and that he could, therefore, very well afford to hire a suitable accommodation in any locality fit for his status. In reply thereto, the petitioner stated in his written statement that he was setting only Rs. 935.00 per month including all allowances, etc. that he had a large family to support, that he had a widowed sister- in-law alone with her son staying with him in the premises in Question, that his wife, alone with two dependent children, was living at Noor Mahal, District Jullundur, for the education of the said children and that he had thus to maintain two establishments and had to incur lot of expenses on that account. He also stated that his mother also was living with his wife at Noor Mahal. Respondent 1 filed a replication and also an affidavit on or about July 17, 1971, in which she alleged that the petitioner had deserted his wife and children for the last many years, and that the latter had been residing separately and were not dependant upon the petitioner.