CHAMELI DEVI Vs. G C JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed underr Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 20th September, 1974 passed by Shri G.C. Jain, Assistant Commissioner (Slum) whereby permission has been granted by him to the respondent-landlord under Section 19(l)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') to institute eviction proceedings against his tenant Smt. Chameli Devi (petitioner herein), in respect of one room, 2 Kolkies, portion of Chhatti, court yard, latrine and terrace on the roof in common with other tenants in house No.548, Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

(2.) No appearance has been put in on behalf of the respondent-landlord. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in respect of this very pre uses, earlier a similar petition was filed by the same landlord against the petitioner before Shri D.K. Poddar, Competent Authority appointed under the Act, which was dismissed. The appeal filed there against by the respondent- landlord was also dismissed. According to him, there is no change of circumstances nor any particnlars of change of circumstances have been given by the respondent- landlord in the petition and, therefore, the present eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord is not mainteinable and it operates as res judicata. According to him, this question has been reised by the petitioner in the petition and ground No.2 of para 28 specifically alleges that this question was raised and argued before respondent No. 1, the Competent Authority, but he has not considered the same. This ground is supported by an affidavit.

(3.) There is a good deal of force in the aforementioned submission of the learned counsel. The competent authority has since not considered the consequences that will flow from the earlier decision in asimilar petition filed before the Competent Authority, which should have in fact been considered. Such non-consideration has resulted in failure of exercise of jurisdiction vested in him under the law and the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.