RAM NATH Vs. R K BAWEJA JUDICIAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this Writ Petition, seeks to quash the order dated 21/3/1967 of the Judicial Secretary, Delhi Administration, Delhi passed in case No. 6/97 whereby the order dated December 19, 1966 of the Competent Authority was set aside as being illegal.

(2.) The facts which will resolve the controversy in this case lie in a narrow compass. By some date in 1959, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 had become owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 770 situate in Nai Sarak, Delhi, the first, second and third floors of which were in the occupation of the petitioner as a tenant. On 30/9/1961, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 filed an application No. 227 of 1962, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of sub-letting. Upon an application made under section 15 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent in Court. Arrears of Rent were not deposited and, it is not disputed,that arrears of rent right from the year 1959 have not so far been paid by the petitioner to respondents Nos. 2 to 6. The application for eviction was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 28/11/1968. On account of the applicability of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. respondents Nos. 2 to 6 tiled an application on 10/1/1964 before the Competent Authority appointed under the said Slum Act under section 19 for permission to execute the order for eviction. This application was dealt with by Mr. M.S. Shami who had been delegated power by the Competent Authority appointed under the Act to exercise all powers which are exercisable by the Competent Authority under section 19 of the said Slum Act. The permission sought for was granted by Mr. M. S. Shami by his order dated 4/8/1966. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an application on 24/10/1966 before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, who was the Competent Authority appointed under the said Slum Act but who had delegated his functions exercisable under section 19 of the Act to the aforesaid Mr. Shami. The prayer in that application was "to reconsider, review and rectify the order dated 4/8/1966 passed by Mr. Shami, Assistant Commissioner (Slum), under your Supreme power of supervision and Control". I may here mention that the powers of the Competent Authorily has been delegated by a notification dated 13/5/1965. The terms of delegation were that the powers conferred on the Competent Authority by the said Slum Act mentioned in the first column of the schedule given under the notification were subject to the supervision and control of the Competent Authority. Presumably, in purported exercise of this power of supervision and control, the Competent. Authority passed an order dated December 19, 1966, whereby he observed:

(3.) Being aggrieved by this order, respondents Nos. 2 to 6 filed an appeal, which initially purported to be under section 20 of the said Slum Act before the Administrator appointed under the said Slum Act. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it was treated to be an appeal under section 30 of the said Slum Act. By his order dated 21/3/1967, the delegate of the administrator held that the order dated December 19, 1966, passed by the Commissioner as the competent Authority giving the aforesaid direction was manifestly illegal and was not sustainable. For the reasons given in the said order the appeal was accepted and the order of the Commissioner was set aside. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.