RAM SWARUP Vs. ASHARFI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord, Prabhu Dayal, brought an application for eviction of his tenant Asharfi Devi, the present respondent. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the tenant on 11th January, 1962. The property is situated in a slum area. Under s. 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (the Act) as originally enacted the landlord was required to apply for permission of the competent authority to execute the eviction order. Prabhu Dayal applied. The competent authority did not give permission. The eviction order therefore could not be executed.

(2.) On 3rd May, 1965, Prabhu Dayal brought a suit for possession and mesne profits against Asharfi Devi in the court of the subordinate judge on the ground that Asharfi Devi had ceased to be a tenant by reason of the eviction order passed by the controller and that in the eye of law she was a trespasser. Asharfi Devi appeared in court. She contested the suit. Her chief defence was that the suit against her was not maintainable as the competent authority had refused permission to 390 the landlord to execute the eviction order and that she was protected by the statute. The trial court framed among others the following issues : 2. Whether the suit is maintainable ? 3. Whether the tenancy of the tenant has come to an end and her possession has become unlawful ? If so, what is its effect ?

(3.) On issue No. 2 the subordinate judge held that the suit was maintainable. On issue No. 3 he returned the finding that the tenancy of the tenant had come to an end when the order of eviction was passed against her and her possession was unlawful. In the result he passed a decree for possession and mesne profits on 26th November,1965.