DIMPLE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HARISH KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present petition seeks quashment of the order dated August 2, 1989 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of convenience) whereby permission was granted to respondent No.1 to institute eviction proceedings against M/s. Dimple (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for the sake of brevity).

(2.) Brief facts which gave rise to the present petition are as under : that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1957 in the first floor of the property bearing No.1564. Ishwari Niwas, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property) by Shri Ishwari Prashad father of respondent No.1. The said Shri Ishwari Prashad filed a petition bearing petition No.ESN/5043/85 in the court of the Competent Authority (Slum) for grant of permission to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner for eviction from the disputed property. The said Shri Ishwari Prashad expired during the pendency of the said proceedings. Consequently on his death, respondent No.1 herein moved an application for substitution of his name in place of his deceased father, under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said petition for grant of permission to initiate eviction proceedings was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated August 14, 1985 at the instance of the respondent No.1. While dismissing the said petition no permission was granted to respondent No.1 to present a fresh petition for the grant of permission. Respondent No.1 neither applied for nor sought such a permission. Hence the second petition for grant of permission was not maintainable.

(3.) Shri Ishwari Prashad left for his heavenly abode leaving behind heirs whose names find a mention in para 3 of the petition. Respondent No.1 however, claiming himself to be the only legal heir of the deceased Ishwari Prashad on the basis of a will, alleged to have been executed by late Ishwari Prashad, filed a second petition on December 12, 1985 under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act for permission to initiate eviction proceedings against the respondent No.1. The said will was never placed on record. Respondent No.1 neither placed on record any relinquishment deed in his favour nor any 'No Objection Certificate' by the other legal heirs to bring forward the abovesaid petition for grant of permission. Respondent No.1 did not implead the other legal heirs/landlords as parties to the abovesaid proceedings under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act. The petition for permission to institute the eviction proceedings was not maintainable for and on behalf of respondent No.1 as he is not the only owner/landlord of the disputed property. Admittedly there are other legal heirs whose names find a mention in para III of the present petition. No probate was placed on record in respect of the alleged will dated August 26, 1983. The impugned order dated August 2, 1989 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act granting permission to the respondent No.1 to institute eviction proceedings is illegal and invalid.