KAILASH CHAND Vs. GANPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 17th March, 1981, whereby the appellant sub-tenant, has been allowed to be proceeded against for an action for his eviction from the premises situated in the slum area, as defined in the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Areas Act) without seeking prior permission of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. Lala Ganpat Rai, respondent was a thekedar (contractor) of the entire house no. 4530, Daiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi with the right to let and sub-let the whole or a part thereof to a third person. Kailash Chand, the appellant, was in occupation of a portion of the first floor of the said house as a sub-tenant at the rate of Rs. 20.40 per mensem. Sometime back in the year 1972, Ganpat Rai filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act, seeking permission from the Competent Authority to institute eviction proceedings against Kailash Chand. During the pendency of these proceedings, the original landlord filed a petition for eviction in the court of the Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(l)(a) and (h) against Kailash Chand on the allegations that the premises are bona fide required for his residence and that of his family members and that Kailash Chand has acquired an alternative accommodation. Kailash Chand contended before the Competent Authority that since the eviction petition has already been initiated by the landlord against him. the present application under Section 19 of the Act has become infructuous and is not maintainable. The Competent Authority overruled this objection and held that Ganpat Rai's application under Section 19 of the Act is maintainable. Against this orde Kailash Chand filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. While allowing the appeal and quashing the proceedings under Section 19 of the Act, the learned Financial Commissioner observed :-

(3.) In appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal held otherwise. His conclusion was:- s