CHUNI LAL KAPUR Vs. PRAKASH WANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition was at first heard Ex parte Upon application of Respondent 3 that she was not served, ex parte order was set aside. These facts have been detailed in paras 1 to 3. Para 4 onwards, judgement is : -

(2.) In the application filed by respondents it was alleged that the petitioner had three sons. In the application it was alleged that the petitioner had three sons one of whom is in England and is drawing about Rs. 7,000.00 p.m. and is sending Rs. 1,000.00 p.m. to the petitioner. The other son Romesh Kumar was said to be earning Rs. 600.00 p.m. and the third son Jit Kumar Rs. 300.00 p.m. The petitioner is said to have been working as Accountant in Delhi Cloth an General Mills and earning Rs. 450.00 p.m. Thus the landlady maintained that the petitioner had sufficient income and could find alternative accommodation, if evicted.

(3.) The petitioner denied these allegations, and stated that he was not doing any job and was unemployed. He also denied that his son in England was sending any money to him. As for Romesh Kumar, the case of the petitioner was that he was earning Rs. 450.00 and has wife and child to look after and he did not give any money to him. His third son was said to be earning Rs 100.00. The Competent Authority found that the landlady had not been able to show that any money was being received by the petitioner from his son in England or from Romesh. It found that the landlady had failed to give any convincing proof about the means and status of the petitioner and as such refused to give permission to file eviction proceedings against the tenant. Aggrieved against that an appeal was filed by the landlady before the Financial Commissioner who allowed the appeal and has granted permission. The Financial Commissioner has not accepted the case of the landlady that Rs. 1,000.00 was being received by the tenant from his son in England. The Financial Commissioner has also accepted that the tenant was unemployed and that his income was nil. He, however, has held that Romesh Kumar was earning Rs. 600.00 and Jit Kumar was earning Rs. 300.00 and thus the family income is Rs. 900.00 which provides the petitioner with a status and the means to find alternative accommodation out side a slum area.