HABIB UL HAQ Vs. THANKAR DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Habib-ul-Haq are as follows: Haji-Mohd. Siddiq the contesting respondent, is the owner of a house situated in Gall Hissam-ud-Dm Haider in the part of Delhi called Ballimaran which is a "slum area" notified under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 95 of 1956. He instituted a suit against his tenant, the present petitioner, in 1957 for ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. His suit was dismissed, but decreed in appeal and the decree was confirmed by this Court in revision of the 10th of November, 1960.

(2.) However, since the property was situated in a slum area it was necessary for the landlord under Section 19 of the Act to obtain the permission of the Competent Authority under the Act before he could execute his decree, The landlord duly applied and on the 17th of January 1961 the Competent Authority passed what must be described as a conditional order, from which it appears that the landlord was living on the ground-floor of the building while the tenant occupied the first floor and the root on which there was a barsati. It was ordered that if the tenant surrendered possession of the roof and barsati to the landlord on or before the 15th of February, 1961, the application of the landlord for permission to execute his decree would stand dismissed, but if the tenant failed to fulfil the condition the landlord was permitted to execute his decree.

(3.) Section 20 of the Act permits an appeal to the Administrator in case the Competent Authority refuses the landlord permission to execute his decree under Section 19. It seems that in the present case no compliance had been made by the tenant with the terms of the order of the Competent Authority up to the 14th of February, 1951 and the period of limitation for an appeal under Section 20 is thirty days. In these circumstances the landlord died an appeal before the Administrator on the 14th of February as if the order had been one refusing permission. The Administrator while holding that the appeal was in the circumstances misconceived, at the same time held that the order of the Competent Authority was not a proper one and that what he ought to have done was, after specifying the condition to fix an interim date, and then to pass an order either granting or refusing the landlord permission to execute the decree according to whether the tenant had complied with the condition or not. In the circumstances the Administrator remanded the case to the Competent Authority to decide whether the condition specified in the order of the 17th of January 1961 had been carried out or not, and to pass a final order on the landlord's application accordingly. The Competent Authority by a lengthy and detailed order dated the 19th of July 1962 came to tha conclusion that the tenant had not carried out the condition specified in his predecessor's order and therefore granted the landlord permission to execute his decree, but at the same time he postponed the execution until after the 31st of October 1962. The present petition was filed in, this Court challenging these orders before the end of September 1962.