Ram Anand vs Gurdial Chand And Ors.
1986 Latest Caselaw 42 Del

JUDGMENT

Yogeghwar Dayal, J.

(1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged an older dated 22nd March, 1984 passed by the Competent Authority (Slum) Iii whereby the Competent Authority dismissed an application filed before it for permission to execute a decree for eviction already obtained by him against the respondents.

(2) The Competent Authority dismissed the application on two grounds ; namely that the application was in Form Ccc was not in Form Cc, and that it was not accompanied by certified copy of the eviction order.

(3) The facts alleged in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution are that the petitioner, Sri Ram Anand, obtained an order of eviction of the respondents from the Court of the Additional Rent Controller by order dated 21st December, 1964. This order of eviction was passed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord/petitioner. It is further averred in the petition that this order was affirmed by Shri P.S. Pattar, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, by his order dated 17th May, 1965. It is further alleged that the tenants filed an appeal namely Sao No. 228-D of 1965 which was also dismissed by order of Sachar, J. dated 25th August, 1970. It is further averred in the petition that since the premises in dispute situate in Slum Area, the petitioner made an application before the Competent Authority for permission to execute the eviction decree but the same was dismissed on 18th December, 1973. It is further averred that since the financial status of the tenants has improved, he made the second application on or about 2nd August, 1977 for permission to execute the aforesaid decree.

(4) No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying these facts.

(5) As I have noticed earlier the application has not been decided on merits ; namely whether the financial status of the tenants has been improved since the dismissal of the earlier application but on the aforesaid two grounds.

(6) I have in my order dated 8th October, 1985 while disposing of C.M.(M) No. 158 of 1985 Smt. Ramo Devi and others v. Sh. Madan Jhan and others taken the view that the heading of the application is not part of the application and if the application filed by the landlord in substance is in accordance with all the particulars required in the prescribed form, the application for permission is complete and could not be rejected on the technical ground that the heading is wrong. Therefore, one of the grounds on which the application was dismissed by the Competent Authority by the impugned order dated 22nd March, 1984 is illegal and the error is apparent.

(7) However, in the impugned order the second ground given is that the certified copy of the eviction bad not been filed. It is common case that photo copy by way of unattested copy was filed Along with the application. There may be some substance in this ground since the requirement of the prescribed form is ' that the party applying for permission should file the copy of the decree/older of judgment Along with the application" which means 497 "that the party concerned should file certified copy but non-fulfilment of this requirement looses importance in view of the fact that in the reply which was filed to the application for permission, the passing of the order of ejectment was not disputed. Neither the order of the Additional Rent Controller, nor the affirmation of that order by the Rent Control Tribunal or the dismissal of the tenant's appeal by this Court was disputed. If that be the position, the requirement of filing of certified copy of the order of eviction looses all importance. It appears to me that in these circumstances the Competent Authority acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the application on this ground.

(8) Since both the grounds on which the application for permission was dismissed are illegal, I have no option but to quash the impugned order dated 22nd March. 1984 and direct the Competent Authority to decide the application on merits in accordance with law.

(9) Parties are directed to appear before the Competent Authority on 24th February, 1986 and thereafter the Competent Authority will decide the application for permission in accordance with law.

(10) Mr. Kapur, who appears for the tenants, submits that since the filing of the application for permission, the condition of the tenants has further deteriorated and the Competent Authority should be directed to examine that also. As, I have stated earlier, the Competent Authority will decide the application in accordance with law.

(11) The application for permission to execute the decree is pending since 1977 it is expected that the competent Authority will deal with the matter with expedition.

(12) Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.