USHA BHASIN Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise an order passed by the Competent Authority on 25-5-1973 under Section 19 of Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), granting permission to the second respondent in the writ petition to institute eviction proceedings against the 4th respondent in respect of the back portion of shop No. 1515/70 Shanker Niwas, Bhagirath Place, Delhi.

(2.) The main premises belongs to the Life Insurance Corporation of India, the second respondent in this writ petition (hereinafter referred to as the landlord') had taken the shop on rent from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is common ground that the landlord let out the back portion of the premises in 1951 to M/s Bhagwan Dass & Company which was admittedly a partnership firm at the relevant time. On 8-5-1971 the landlord desired to evict the said tenant and hence filed a petition for permission to institute eviction proceedings under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Act. In the petition it was alleged that the grounds on which the eviction of the tenant was sought were non-payment of rent since 1-6-1970, sub-lease of the premises by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord and the existence of alternative accommodation as well as means therefor.

(3.) From the order of the Competent Authority it is seen that repeated attempts were made to have the respondent to the above petition duly served. Ultimately substituted service was ordered and notice of the hearing of the petition was published in a newspaper on 7.11.1971. On 15.1.1972 Mrs. Usha Bhasin, the petitioner before this Court filed a written statement in which the various allegations in the petition were denied. The landlord filed a replication reiterating the grounds but also raising a preliminary objection that Mrs. Usha Bhasin had no authority or power of attorney to appear on behalf of the respondents and that her counsel had equally no authority to appear on behalf of the respondents. It was therefore prayed that ex-parte proceedings should be taken against the respondents. To these preliminary objections a rejoinder was filed on behalf of Mrs. Bhasin who claimed that she was the daughter of Bhagwan Dass who was one of the partners of Bhagwan Dass & Co. the respondent firm and that she had therefore inherited the tenancy rights along with her brothers and was therefore entitled to file a written statement and contest the petition. The Competent Authority held that Mrs. Bhasin had no locus standi to defend the case and since the respondents were ex-parte according to him he proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the evidence on file. There being nothing to controvert the allegations in the plaint and that on evidence of the landlord he granted permission to the petitioners to institute recovery proceedings against Bhagwan Dass & Company. It is the correctness of this order that is being challenged in this petition.