HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTIA DEVI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant assails the order of the Competent Authority, under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956, hereinafter called the Act : by which the authority granted permission to the landlady, respondent No. 1 herein, to institute proceedings for his eviction.

(2.) The landlady sought permission under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act from the Competent Authority to institute proceedings for the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the grounds that the premises, which had been let out for a residential purpose was being misused for a commercial purpose, that the tenant had acquired alternative accommodation in Wazirpur Colony for his residence : that the tenant had "deserted the premises" for the last over 6 months ; and that the tenant had unauthorisedly sublet or parted with the possession of the premises. The application was resisted on behalf of the tenant and it was contended that the premises had been let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and that the tenant was using the premises partly for the purpose of his business and partly for residence and that he and his wife were residing in the premises. It was further alleged that the premises in Wazirpur Colony had been taken on rent by the tenant's son, Amrik Singh who was residing there with his family and brothers. The allegations of subletting and parting with possession were denied. The tenant sought the protection of the authority on the ground that the monthly income of the tenant varies between Rs. 400 and Rs. 500.

(3.) In the course of the proceedings, the Authority appointed, at the instance of the landlady a local Commissioner and directed him to proceed immediately to the demised premises and to the Wazirpur Premises and to report as to who were in occupation of the two. The local Commissioner submitted his report, according to which he first visited the demised premises and recorded the statement of certain persons including one found present there with a view to verify as to who were residing in the said premises and to what use the said premises was being put. It is further made out that apart from recording the statements, the local Commissioner also inspected the premises and found that, except a small room in the verandah and kitchen in the court-yard, the rest of the premises was being used for storage of old truck tyres. It was further made out that having regard to the type of utensils lying in a portion, which was not being used for storage, and the extent of the accommodation it could be inferred that "no man of status or even a middle class person" could possibly be residing there. It was further reported that one Atabullah was residing there with his son and was working at the shop of the tenant. The Commissioner concluded that the tenant could not be residing in the premises in dispute. It was further pointed out that neither the tenant nor any member of his family was present at the premises when the spot was inspected but while the Commissioner was there, a lady, who claimed to be the wife of the tenant, was brought there. The Commissioner then went to inspect the Wazirpur premises and found it to be a well furnished house and reported that on his enquiry in the locality, he was told that the tenant was residing there with his son, Amrik Singh. The Commissioner, however, pointed out that the persons who gave this information "did not agree to get their statement recorded". The Commissioner also mentioned that while he was at this premises, a lady by name Paramjit Kaur came there claiming to be the wife of Amrik Singh. The report concludes as under :