SHANKUNTLA DEVI Vs. H.C. ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Competent Authority dated 19th August, 1972.

(2.) APART from disbelieving the case of the petitioner that her income is only Rs. 300/- per month the Competent Authority has granted the permission because he has found that the petitioner has on her own admission another accommodation in her possession. For this purpose, he has referred to the written statement filed by the petitioner on 9th February 1971 before the Additional Rent Controller in the case entitled Radha Rani v. Smt. Shakuntla Devi wherein she has stated that she is residing at the premises other than those in the present case. She has in that case also admitted that she has more than one tenanted premises. Even in this Court it is not denied that the petitioner did not file the above mentioned written statement before the Additional Rent Controller but it is contended that the premises in dispute in the present case were let out to her for commercial purposes and she is using the same for her business. Now, I find that this point was not urged before the Competent Authority though in the affidavit filed by husband of the petitioner an oblique reference to that effect has been made. The petitioner did not choose to file any affidavit before the Competent Authority but only her husband as her general attorney filed an affidavit. From the perusal of the affidavit filed by the general attorney it appears that the business, if any, is being run by her husband and the petitioner is only a Benamidar. On perusal of the written statement filed in the other case before the Additional Rent Controller. I find that she has stated that the husband is running the business in the disputed premises. Moreover, she has also stated that even the other premises at Azad Nagar, were taken on rent by her for both commercial and residential purposes. Therefore, since the petitioner had alternative accommodation. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Competent Authority has erred in not ascertaining whether the petitioner had the means to acquire alternative accommodation.

(3.) IN the present case since it is found that the petitioner had alternative accommodation, the permission was rightly granted.