NETRA PAL Vs. AMARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Netrapal has assailed the order of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, (in short the Act). He has challenged the impugned order primarily on the grounds that the Competent Authority failed to consider the fact that the respondent landlady had not pleaded nor proved the means and status of the petitioner. In the absence of the same permission under Sec. 19 of the Act could not to have been granted.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge raised by the petitioner the brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2, landlady Smt. Kaushalya Devi sought permission from the Competent Authority to evict the petitioner from her two shops given on rent, on the grounds of; (i) non payment of rent; and (ii) for subletting, assigning or (otherwise parting with possession of shop bearing Municipal No. 3142, Mohalla Dassan, Behind Chawri Bazar, Delhi, unauthorisedly and illegally. Her petition was contested by the petitioner herein (respondent before the Competent Authority) raising the plea that Kaushalya Devi was not the owner and that he had no means to acquire alternative premises for running his business. He, however, admitted that agreed rate of rent was Rs. 30.00 and Rs. 35.00 per month respectively. That he had paid the rent up to 18th Jan., 1973. Since, thereafter the landlady refused to accept the rent hence he was prepared to pay the arrears in Installments. He denied that he sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the shop bearing No. 3142. As he had no other source of income except the meagre income from these two shops taken on rent from this landlady bearing Municipal Nos. 3142 and 3144, Mohalla Dassan, behind Chawri Bazar, Delhi, permission should not be granted. In case permission granted he would create another slum. He was a petty shop keeper. In these two shops he could not stall goods worth more than Rs. 800.00. In replication to the written statement the landlady denied that the petitioner herein was a poor man or that he had not sub let the shop. Subsequently, the landlady filed an affidavit of her husband by way of evidence, wherein it has been stated that except making a bald statement the tenant had not disclosed his financial accounts. Her husband Sh.Bhagwan Swarup Gupta further testified that the tenant was running a very lucrative business as general merchant selling a variety of articles including cold drinks. He was earning not less than Rs. 1000.00 per month and that he had sublet the shop No. 3142 at a monthly rent of Rs. 200.00. Previously the shop was sublet to a printing press and thereafter for godown purposes. This he stated on the basis of information gathered by him.

(3.) On the other hand the tenant Sh.Netra Pal filed his affidavit by way of evidence testifying that he had paid the rent up to 18th Jan., 1973. He was prepared to pay the arrears of rent in Installments which had accrued because of the refusal by the landlady to accept the rent after 18th Jan., 1973. He denied that his financial position was sound. He further stated that he being a poor man was not in a position to get alternative shop for the purposes of running his business. That he was earning Rs. 175.00to Rs. 200.00 per month from both the shops Beside these two shops he had no other source of income. He was not paying any income-tax. To support his case he got filed the affidavits of S/Sh. Ram Bharose Lal, Ishwar Dass, Ravinder Kumar and Lala Tek Chand, by way of evidence, all of whom stated that Netra Pal was selling toffee, biscuit and Coca Cola in the tenanted shops. He was not earning more than Rs. 175.00 per month from both the shops. That he was a poor man.