V P SINGH RATHOUR Vs. RAM KALI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a practising advocate in Delhi. He started his independent practice in the year 1970 after having a judicial training with another advocate. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises consisting of one room. one kitchencum-store room, one latrine and bath-room in a building bearing No. 11199, Mandir Road, Doriwalan, D. C. Mills, Delhi, taken on rent from one Lala Rattan Lal, predecessor in interest of respondent No. 1 herein. On 14th March, 1970 the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 19(1) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Slum Act') before the Competent Authority. The respondent No. 1 wanted to institute a suit for obtaining a decree for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement for herself and her family members as she had no reasonably suitable accommodation and also on the ground that the petitioner had already acquired alternate accommodation or was in any event in a postition to obtain alternate accommodation. The petitioner herein filed his written statement and, though he admitted that respondent No. 1 was the owner, denied all other allegations. The Competent Authority, after considering all the evidence and hearing the arguments of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the disputed premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes only and that the petitioner admittedly was in possession of another residential house No. 11200, Doriwalan, Delhi, as was evident from the ration-card filed by the petitioner, and held that since the petitioner was already in possession of another residential premises, there was no question of his creating slum in case he was evicted and, therefore, granted permission to the respondent No. 1 to file a suit for eviction. It is this order of the Competent Authority dated 14th March, 1971 which has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Competent Authority, while coming to the conclusion that alternate residential accommodation was available to the petitioner, did not consider the suitability of the accommodation. It was submitted that the petitioner, who is an advocate, is an active C.P.I. (M) worker and spends most of his time in helping people in the lower strata of society. The learned counsel submitted that at the time when the application under Section 19 was filed, the petitioner was a new entrant to the profession and his monthly income was less than Rs. 100.00. It was stated that the deceased father of the petitioner had built an unauthorised house at Seelampur, Gonda and the petitioner had no interest in that. The house at Gonda was already under tenants, who were paying rent to the widowed mother of the petitioner. He further stated that the said house was already under demolition orders by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as the said house at Gonda was built in an unauthorised colony. It was stated that the petitioner at that time was learning the profession and was also using the disputed premises for his office. It was further contended that the petitioner's mother, along with her other dependents, was residing in the adjoining house and the petitioner being the eldest male member of the family had to stay near the family to look after their interest. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner could not arrange for suitable alternate accommodation within his means, particularly because his income was very meagre.

(3.) On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had sufficient means to find suitable alternate accommodation. The petitioner's brother, who formed a joint family with the petitioner, was employed with an American Pharmacy as Medical Representative and had monthly income of Rs. 1,000.00. The property at Gonda which is owned by the petitioner contains four living rooms and two shops out of which three rooms were lying vacant and are in possession of the petitioner. It was also contended that the respondent required the premises apart from other reasons, for bona fide personal use. It was further contended that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into disputed questions of fact, and upset the positive findings of the Competent Authority that the petitioner was in possession of another residential house. It was contended that it was not necessary for the Competent Authority to find out whether the alternate accommodation was exactly similar to the accommodation occupied by the petitioner.