HARI CHAND Vs. RAVINDER NATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenging in this petition is to the order of the Competent Authority (Slums) who allowed the application of the respondents 1 & 2 to institute proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act for the eviction of their tenants, in shop Nos. 1630 to 1632, Chuna Mandi Paharganj, New Delhi.

(2.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 had filed on 27th January, 1976, an application under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 for permission to institute proceedings for eviction of the petitioner who was stated to be the tenant of the said respondents. In the said application it was contended that the petitioner herein was a tenant of the aforesaid three shop Nos. 1630 to 1632. In the grounds on which the eviction was sought it was, inter alia, averred in the said application as under :-

(3.) UNDER the provisions of the Slum Act, one of the factors which has to be examined by the Competent Authority is as to whether the tenant would create a slum, if his eviction was ordered. It is necessary for the Competent Authority to first decide whether the tenant is in actual physical possession of the premises, the question of his creating any slum would not arise. This is exactly what has been held by the Competent Authority. Mr. Rawal, of course, disputes this proposition but it is not necessary to go into this question because I find that the Competent Authority was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner herein had deserted the premises.