BISMILLA JAN Vs. JAIN TRACTORS AND AUTO SPARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Comp. Authority held that Respdt. was not earning much and declined permission. Order was upheld in appeal by Fin. Comm. Petitioned moved High Court. After detailing above facts, judgment proceeds]

(2.) The object of the Slum Act is the orderly elimination of slums with interim protection for the slum dwellers until they are moved into better dwelling. The Comp. Auth. are given sufficient discretion under the Slum Act to ascertain whether the tenant, who has accommodation in the slum area, is likely to create further slums, if evicted. While exercising this discretion, however the Comp. Auth. can take into account only the factors mentioned in S. 19(4) of the Slum Act. It is well settled that the two factors which have to be taken into consideration are : (a) the availability of alternate accommodation & (b) the financial status of the tenant in order to find out whether he would be in a position to get alternate accommodation in case he was evicted or whether he was likely to create slums.

(3.) For finding out whether alternate accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him, the Comp. Auth. has to inquire into the question of the means of the tenant. A landlord, who files the petition u/s 19, alleging that the tenant has sufficient means would not naturally be in a position to know the exact income of the tenant. However, while filing the petition for permission u/s 19 for institution of eviction proceedings against the tenant he has to allege what according to his knowledge or information is the income of the tenant and adduce such evidence as is possible for him to place before the Comp. Auth. Once the landlord has done that, it is for the tenant to adduce positive evidence regarding his income which is especially within his knowledge. [Petitioner applied to Comp. Auth. On 23.5.70 for permission u/s 19 to sue respondent for eviction, Respdt. was doing business of Auto Spare parts in tenanted premises.