RAM LAL Vs. COMPETANT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the tenant (Ram Lal) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Competent Authority (Shri P. R. Varshaneya) dated 3-6-1970, granting permission to the landlord (respondent) under section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 to institute eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the tenant (petitioner). The petitioner paid during the hearing the arrears of rent and the same was accepted by the landlord in order to remove the impediment which otherwise existed in the matter of this petition being heard. A separate note concerning this has been made in the record and this was done without prejudice to the rights of either side.

(2.) The Competent Authority has rested his order on the ground that the tenant is possessed of a licence for the sale of foodgrains and vegetable oils etc. and "howsoever petty business in respect of the licenced articles that may be, his income therefrom cannot be less than Rs. 10.00 per day-meaning thereby that the respondent is not earning less than Rs. 300.00 p.m." Since his family consists of only himself and his wife, the Competent Authority thought, that the "respondent can very well afford to secure an alternative accommodation within his means (i.e. income of Rs. 300.00 p.m.) without creating further slum". The petitioner complains that the said finding regarding the means and earning capacity is not supported by any legal evidence and for that reason should be quashed. This is not disputed that the burden of proving lack of sufficient means to find suitable alternative accommodation is on the tenant,

(3.) It is necessary in the first instance to notice the grounds on which the landlord sought permission to evict the petitioner and how the Competent Authority has dealt with them. The alleged bonafide requirement of the landlord of the premises in question for his own use was not one which had to be decided by the Competent Authority; it has to be decided only by the Rent Controller. It had been also alleged by the landlord that the petitioner had built or acquired vacant possession of residential accommodation in premises No. C-185. J. J. Colony situate in the area of village Wazirpur, Delhi benami in the name of his wife Smt. Ram Rakhi and that he also obtained vacant possession of two fiats D. 61 and D. 62 in the same colony which stood allotted in the name of his son Kuldeep Lal and his brother-in-law Krishan Lal, respectively. It was still further alleged hv the landlord that the petitioner had retired "recently" from Government service as a teacher and that he had got about Rs. 25,000.00 as his Provident Fund, Gratuity etc.; he was also teaching in a private school where he was getting about Rs. 300.00 per month and he was in addition coaching students privately after school hours and corning about Rs. 400.00. His wife was said to be earning Rs. 200.00 per month by darning clothes. Two of his sons were serving in the Air Force and earning about Rs, 450.00 per month each. Yet another son was getting about Rs. 500.00 per month as a driver in addition to his earning some overtime allowance. Regarding the sons of the petitioner the Competent Authority set out what had been mentioned by the petitioner in his affidavit concerning them and seemed to accept the case of the .tenant that they were posted at different places; affidavits were filed from two of them in support of their being separate from their father.