TIRLOKI NATH SHAMBHU NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question as to whether the competent authority appointed under the Slum areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act (No. 96 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), constituted a Court for the purpose of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C. , arises for determination in this criminal revision filed by Tirloki Nath against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge. Delhi, affirming on revision the order of the trial Court. It has arisen in the following circumstances:--

(2.) HOUSE No. 345 situate at Naya Bans, Delhi, which previously vested in the custodian of Evacuee Property, was purchased by Parshotam Das in a public auction. After obtaining possession of the house, Parshotam Das filed a suit for ejectment from the house in question against Tirloki Nath and others. Tirloki Nath, it may be stated, was residing in a portion of the house as a tenant. In the aforesaid suit a decree was awarded in favour of Parshotam Das against Tirloki nath and others. As the house was situated in a slum area and the tenants could not be evicted therefrom without obtaining the permission of the competent authority under Section 19 of the Act, Parshotam Das moved the competent authority for grant of the requisite permission. Tirloki Nath in those proceedings pleaded that Dev Raj accused was residing in a portion of a house as Tirloki Nath's sub-tenant. This fact was denied by Parshotam Das. In support of the plea, Tirloki nath filed certain, documents to show that Dev Raj was occupying a portion of the house in question as sub-tenant and was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 6 per mensem. The competent authority repelled the objections raised by Tirloki Nath and passed an order that execution proceedings for the ejectment of Tirloki Nath could continue. The documents filed on behalf of Tirloki Nath were found to be forged. Subsequently on matter having been reported to the notice, the matter was investigated and Tirloki Nath and Dev Raj were sent up for standing trial under Sections 465, 471 and 120-B, I. P. C.

(3.) AN application was filed on behalf of the accused before the trial Magistrate that there was a bar to his taking cognizance of the offence under Clause (c) of Subsection (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C. as the complaint had not been filed by the competent authority under the Act. This application was dismissed by the trial court and its order, as stated earlier, was affirmed on revision by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.