SATISH CHAND RASTOGI Vs. JAYANTI PICTURES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7th March, 1978 of Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. THE Tribunal reversed the judgment dated 5th August, 1974 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in Suit No. 711 of 1970. THE father of the appellant, Harish Chand Rastogi, (since deceased) filed eviction petition pleading that M/s Jayanti Pictures of which respondent Pritam Shah (since deceased) was the sole proprietor and had been a tenant in the demised premises comprising of part of second floor of property no. 1681/19, Mangal Market, Jogdhian Colony, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and he had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to respondent nos. 2 to 6 and also has not paid the rent depite service of notice of demand. THE premises in question were admittedly situated in the Slum Area. THE Tribunal examined Exhibit A-ll which was copy of the Order of Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) granting the permission to the appellant landlord to file the eviction petition. THE perusal of the order showed that the permission had been given for filing the eviction petition only on the ground that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent. THE Competent Authority did not consider whether the respondent tenant was in good financial position to take up any other premises on rent. This requirement is clearly stated in Section 19 of the Act and is incorporated in sub section 4. THE learned Judge relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this court reported as Raghubir Agarwal vs. Kishorilal 1978 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 58 which held that the Competent Authority under the Act had no jurisdiction to grant permission for filing an eviction case on any ground extraneous to the grounds mentioned in the Act. In the present case the permission had been granted by the Competent Authority holding that the tenant was defaulter in payment of rent. This ground would not entitle the landlord the grant permission under the Act. THE Tribunal accordingly followed the above judgment and allowed the appeal of the respondent. THE appellant landlord was however held not debarred from filing fresh petition on the same cause of action after obtaining a valid permission from the Competent Authority under the Act. THE learned counsel for the appeallant fairly concedes that the appellant has since moved the Competent Authority and the necessary permission has been granted and the proceedings for eviction are pending.

(2.) IN view of the settled position of law and the facts of the present case, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.