S N KAUL Vs. AMRIK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed agianst the judgment dated April 30,1987 passed by Shri S.M. Chopra, Competent Authority (Slum) I, Delhi by which permission was granted to the respondent under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to enable him to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner in a Court of Law. Respondent No. 1 is stated to be owner/Receiver of premises bearing No. 2382-83, Gali No. 12, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and he sought permission under Section 19(l)(a) of the Act to enable him to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner who is alleged to be a tenant in a portion of the said premises. The plea which was taken before the Competent Authority is that grounds of eviction are made out and the petitioner allegedly sub-let the premises to one Ms. Girja and he had the necessary means to enable him to hire an alternative premises because he is an educated person and his monthly income is not less than Rs. 3000.00 from tuitions, assignments on various committees of political parties, Government and Research bodies. Respondent Shri Amrik Singh also filed an affidavit that he was the owner of the premises and he had been appointed as a Receiver in respect of I /3rd share of the income from the property by an order dated January 25,1985 passed by Jagdish Chandra, J. in I.A. No. 694/1984 in Suit No. 1891/1984 (Mr. Jagjit Singh v. Mr. Amrik Singh & Others).

(2.) The petitioner, however, denied that the respondent was the owner/Receiver of the property and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also denied that there were any grounds made out for alleged sub-letting. The respondent as well as the petitioner filed their respective evidence and examined the witnesses before the Competent Authority. The same is referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment which read as follows :

(3.) The Competent Authority accepted the- plea of the respondent that he was entitled to file a petition under Section 19(l)(a) of the Act in his representative capacity in respect of the estate of his late mother Smt. Durga Devi and subject to decision of this Court in Suit No. 1891/1984. The learned Judge examined the evidence on record and came to a categorical finding that in case the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises by a Court of Law in appropriate judicial proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he was not likely to create slum as he had the resources to look after himself. The permission as a consequence was granted to respondent No. 1 to enable him to institute eviction proceedings agianst the petitioner in a Court of Law. The proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act have already commenced but no final order was directed to be passed in view of the order made by this Court on February 17, 1988.