ISHAR DAS Vs. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner win) is aggrieved by the order dated 8-1-1973 of the Assistant Coininissioncr with the powers of Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Ocarance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act;, granting permission to take proceedings to evict him from the business premises, bearing No. 1066, Maliwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi.

(2.) Having found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties the Competent Authority went further to find that the alleged sub-letting was true-which is a question to be decided by the Rent Controller. He granted permission to the landlord/ respondcnt(s) to evict him from the said premises but without giving any specific finding as required by section 19(4) of the Act on the tenant's ability to find alternative accommodation within his means if he were evicted, an aspect to which I have made more detailed reference in Kirath Chand v. P. R. Varshneya and others (1971 (1) I.L.R. Delhi 405) 0). Mr. H. S. Dhir, learned counsel for the petitioner did not take the position before me that a purchaser from the landlord, after the granting of permission, could not defend the impugned order granting permission.

(3.) Only a few facts which arc relevant at this stage may be noticed. The landlord had stated in his affidavit that the tenant owned a big house bearing municipal No. 32/6, Gita Colony, Delhi, which would be of not less than Rs. 30,000.00 in value, that he was working as a gold-smith having a licence under the Gold (Control) Act. 196S and the rules framed thereunder, that he had sublet a portion of the shop to two persons, namely, Ranjit Singh and Mian Moujce engraver and gold polisher, respectively, and was realising from them Rs. 250.00 per month. It was added that he had tools and machinery worth Rs. 5000.00 and that he was getting an income of not less _than Rs. 700.00 per month from carrying on his vocation as a gold-smith. The tenant, had, however, admitted that he had a house but explained that it had been purchased from the Government of India lor Rs. 1700.00 only. It may be noticed that in the present petition the petitioner has further stated that though the house was purchased for Rs. 1700.00 by his predecessor-in-interest he had purchased the same from him for Rs. 500U.00 in 1966-a fact which had not been set out before the Competent Authority.