RAMJI DASS Vs. H C ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant raises is whether the application of the landlord under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter called 'the Act', for leave to evict the tenant is barred by the principle of res judicata, because an earlier application for the same relief had .been "dismissed as withdrawn". This question, on account of which apparently the petition had been admitted, however, does not survive and was, therefore, not pressed on behalf of the tenant in view of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ No. 1059 of 1972 decided on 12-3-1975 = (Reported in 1975 Lab 1C 1715) (Delhi), where a similar question arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was answered in the negative,

(2.) At the hearing of the petition, however, learned counsel for the tenant made a feeble attempt to assail the order of the Authority under the Act, granting permission to the landlord to evict the tenant on the ground that the finding of the Authority on the question of the status of the tenant was either based on no evidence or was otherwise perverse and would not be justified on the material on record. It, however, appears to me that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity which would justify interference in the exercise of the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Leave of the Authority was sought to evict the tenant from a room on the ground floor of a house said to have been let out to the tenant for residence but was allegedly misused by the tenant for the purpose of his business. On the question of the status of the tenant, it was alleged on behalf of the landlord that the tenant was carrying on the business of manufacturing imitation jewellery in the premises in dispute, as also in another premises, on Bahadur Garh Road; that the tenant had installed 13 punching machines for the purpose of the business, 9 being in the premises in dispute and 4 of them in the other premises and that in both the places about 13 employees were working for the tenant, who was making out of the business an income of about Rs. 1,500 per month. It was further alleged that for the purpose of operating the machines, the tenant had also installed electricity and maintained a bank account. The allegation with regard to the status of the tenant was sought to be supported besides the affidavit of the landlord by the affidavits of Moban Lal, Hira Lal and Mubarak Alt, who had, by and large, supported the allegations of the landlord.