PREM SAGAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Mr.Vijay Kumar respondent herein (petitioner before the Trial Court) filed a petition under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act,1956 (in short the Act) seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against the present petitioner Mr.Prem Sagar. The Competent Authority by the impugned order granted the permission. The permission was sought, inter alia, on the ground that Mr.Prem Sagar (petitioner herein) had not been paying rent regularly. He had damaged the property by lowering the plinth area of the shop. He had sub- let, assigned and parted with possession of the shop in question to another person. It was further alleged that Wooden partition raised in the shop was without the consent and permission of the landlord. The sub-tenant had been running the business of 'paan' and 'Cigaretts'. That the rent of the entire shop was Rs.35.00 per month. That tenant happens to be a rich man. His daily income from his business was about Rs.300.00 per day. He had been enjoing all the amenities, comforts and facilities of life. He had sufficient means to acquire alternative accommodation. By his eviction no slum would be created.

(2.) . The above assertions of the landlord Mr.Vijay Kumar Rajput were not only denied but contested by Mr.Prem Sagar. He took the plea that the premises was let out and being used within the knowledge of the landlord for residence-cum- commercial purpose. That the possession of the entire shop was exclusively with him. It had neither been sub-let, assigned or parted with to any other person. He himself has been in possession of the entire premises. His real brother living with him has been doing the business of 'Paan', 'Bidi' and 'Cigaretts' in the front portion of the shop whereas he himself has been running the business of selling tea in the back portion of the shop. He has been earning about Rs.50.00 per day from his business of tea selling. He denied that he was earning Rs.300.00 per day. He also denied that he had all the aminities and facilities of life. Since the premises was let out for residential-cum- commercial purpose, if evicted he contended he would creat another slum, therefore, permission should not be granted.

(3.) . On these rival pleadings the petition under Section 19 of the Act was tried by the Competent Authority. Parties were directed to file their evidence by way of affidavits. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Competent Authority by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the ten- ant had sufficient means to acquire an alternative accommodation and if permission granted he would not create another slum. Competent Authority granted permission primarily on the ground that the tenant failed to establish his income by producing his books of accounts. Aggreived by the impugned order, the present petition has been preferred by the tenant (respondent before the Trial Court).