GAURI SHANKAR GUPTA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to the Full Bench is whether section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (simply called the "Act" hereafter applies to a building which is used for a purpose other than residential.

(2.) The petitioner landlord obtained an order for the eviction of the Respondent No. 2 tenant from a premises which is situated in a slum area. He filed a petition under section 19(l)(b) of the Act before the Competent Authority for permission to execute the order of evic- tion. The permission was refused by the Competent Authority. The said order was upheld by the Financial Commissioner in an apeal filed by the petitioner under section 20 of the Act. The petitioner thereup- on filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution with a view to get the said orders set aside.

(3.) The main ground on which the validity of the orders refusing the permission has been impugned is that section 19 of the Act protects from eviction only those tenants who are using the premises occupied by them for residential purposes. If such tenants do not have the means to find alternative accommodation then their eviction from the premises would result in the creation of a fresh slum by them as they would necessarily try to live in another slum after being evicted from one. On the other hand, tenants using the premises for non-residen- tial purposes would already be having some other place to live in. By being evicted from the premises they would lose their place of busi- ness but would continue to reside in their residences. It is argued that as section 19 does not apply to premises used for non-residential purposes, the Component Authority and the Financial Commissioner had no jurisdiction to extend the protection of section 19 to the tenant respondent No. 2 who is a company using the premises for non-residential purposes.