RATTAN CHAND Vs. UJJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act whereby the application of the respondent under Section 19(i)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act for seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner from property no. XV/1708-1709, Partap Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi was allowed.

(2.) Apart from the income which was available to the petitioner from his pension and the typing work which he did, three other factors which weighed with the Competent Authority to pass the impugned order were ; (1) that the earning children of the petitioner had not declared that they were separate from their father and, therefore, their income had to be taken into account bifore determining the means available with the petitioner-tenant ; (2) the petitioner who was appointed as a guardian of minor Jia Rani who had a title in property no. XV/5090, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi for which Jia Rani was awarded some damages which was available for the use of the petitioner; and (3) the petitioner had acquired accommodation near Paharganj, New Delhi which he later on vacated and owned another property no. C-893 (T/ll4), Gurdwara, Peshawarian Road, Motia Khan, Delhi for which he was entitled to get rent or in any event that alternative accommodation was available to him.

(3.) It was admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time the impugned order was passed the daughter of the petitioner was living with him. This daughter working with the C.G.H.S. However, the son though was not separated from the petitioner was not living with the father and he was not in a position to send any money to the petitioner and, therefore, the income of the son was not available to the petitioner. It was, therefore, contended that the income of the daughter of the petitioner was available to him and the Competent Authority had not calculated all the income that was available with the petitioner and had not ascertained how much amount the petitioner would have to pay if he had to hire equal area of alternative accommodation. Learned counsel relied on Smt. Raj Rani v. Amar Nath & Others, AIR. 1972 (Delhi) 206 in support of his contention that a formula has been approved by this Court which had to be followed and even assuming the daughter's income is taken into account, as per this formula sufficient funds were not available with the petitioner to acquire alternative accommodation. As regards the damages received by the petitioner being the guardian of Jiya Rani it was submitted that these damages belong to the minor and they were not available for the use of the petitioner and, therefore, this fact should not have weighed with the Competent Authority while passing the impugned order. As regards the property at Motia Khan, Delhi, learned counsel submitted that though the petitioner had owned property no C-893 (T/114) Gurudwara Peshawarian Road. Motia Khan, Delhi after the impugned order was passed, the Delhi Development Authority demolished the property in question and, therefore, the premises at Motia Khan, Delhi was also not available to the petitioner.