NEM CHAND Vs. LAXMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant, which is directed against an order of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), granting permission to the respondent-landlord to evict the petitioner, must be accepted on the short ground that the petition of the landlord was barred by the principle of res judicata, and ought to have been dismissed on that ground alone.

(2.) The landlord, who had obtained a decree for the eviction of the tenant, sought in 1962 permission, of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act to execute the decree. The permission was, however, declined by the competent authority by an order of March 16, 1963, on the ground that with the permission granted to the landlord to execute a similar decree against another tenant the personal need of the landlord would be satisfied as the accommodation that would thus be available to the landlord "should suffice the requirements of the landlord." It was further observed that "the respondent on eviction will be rendered shelterless. It would be difficult for him to secure alternative accommodation, at reasonable rate during these days". The order was upheld in appeal and has, therefore, become final. Subsequently, the landlord filed a petition in 1974, after a lapse of over 10 years; the second petition was sought to be justified on the ground that the "status, means and income of the respondent were not considered by the then Competent Authority and the appellate court". By the impugned order of February 25, 1975, the petition was accepted and the necessary permission was granted to the landlord. It appears from the order that the competent authority as well as the parties were conscious of the bar of res judicata by virtue of the dismissal of the earlier application. The competent authority apparently accepted the contention of the landlord that the second application should not be treated as barred, because in the earlier proceedings the competent authority had not considered the status and the means of the tenant. On the merits, the competent authority rejected the plea of the tenant, a sweetmeat seller, that his income was less than Rs. 200.00 per month. It was observed that it was for the tenant to establish the true state of his income and that he had failed to do so with the result that the averment of the landlord that the tenant was earning more than Rs. 3,000.00 per month must be accepted.

(3.) On behalf of the tenant the impugned order is assailed on a number of grounds, but it is not necessary to go into the other grounds, because, on the admitted facts, the petition of the landlord was barred by the principle of res judicata.