Satya Aggarwal And Ors. vs Gayatri Devi And Anr.
1996 Latest Caselaw 325 Del

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order passed by Mr. B.B. Chaudhary, Competent Authority (Slum), dated 28.9.1993. The Competent Authority granted permission to Smt. Gayatri Devi to file a petition for eviction of the petitioners from shop bearing No. 1974, Ward No. 16, Bank street, Pyare Lal Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5.

(2) Brief facts necessary to dispose of this petition are mentioned here in below. Ram Pratap was a tenant in respect of the said shop in Karol Bagh at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 . After the death of Ram Pratap, the present petitioners have become the tenants under the respondent Mrs.Gayatri Devi by operation of law. Gayatri Devi wants to file an eviction petition against the petitioners. As the property is situated in a slum area, therefore, the present petition has been preferred before the Competent Authority.

(3) In this petition, it is stated that the petitioners who are the respondents before the Competent Authority, are men of means and status. It is mentioned that they own a big house bearing No. F-90, Green Park, New Delhi, valued at Rs. 10 lakhs. It is also mentioned that the petitioners herein own Tv, Vcr, Refrigerator and other luxurious items apart from enjoying telephone facility. The petitioners own cars, scooters and possess gold and silver ornaments. It is also mentioned that they have a huge bank balance. It is also mentioned that the petitioners are also running a non-vegetarian restaurant under the name of 'Richa Bar Be Que', located near Aiims, New Delhi. They are also carrying on automobile business/shop and their average monthly income is more than Rs. 20,000.00 . It is also mentioned that F-90, Green Park, New Delhi is built over an area of 300 sq. yds and is a two-storeyed building from the front and three-storeyed building from the back. The respondents also own another property No. R-1, Green Park, New Delhi, built over an area of 200 sq.yds. There are seven shops in the ground floor and it is a 2-1/2 storeyed building. Three shops having been let out at a monthly rent of approximately Rs. 3000 and 4 shops are under use and occupation of the petitioners. Both these properties originally belonged to late Ram Pratap and after his death, his legal heirs/petitioners are the co-owners of these shops. It is also mentioned that the petitioners are enjoying telephone facility in both the houses i.e. F-90and R-l .Green Park. New Delhi. The income of the petitioners from all sources cannot be less than Rs. 25000.00 per month. It is stated that looking to the fact that they own a number of properties and have a sound financial status, they will not create a slum if evicted from the shop in question and the petitioners can easily arrange an alternative accommodation.

(4) Before the Competent Authority, these tenants had filed a written statement and participated in the proceedings. They had denied the averments incorporated in the petition that though they admit that they became tenants after the death of Ram Pratap, however, they did not accept the respondent Gayatri Devi as the owner of the premises because she had not shown the title deed of the premises. They have also denied that they are men of substantial means and status. They have mentioned that the property No. F-90, Green Park is owned by Varun Kumar Aggarwal and the other respondents do not have any interest in the property. They have also denied that value of the property is about Rs. 10 lakhs. They have also denied that the respondents have Tv, VCR. and other luxurious items. They have mentioned that they do not possess gold and silver ornaments. They have also denied that they have a huge bank balance and mentioned that they have meagre income of Rs. 1000-1500 per month from which the entire family is being maintained with great difficulty. They have also mentioned that they are leading a very ordinary life and are not in a position to arrange alternative accommodation without creating a slum.

(5) The learned Competent Authority after considering the rival submissions, pleadings, evidence and other material on record, came to the conclusion that it is unbelievable that persons living in Green Park area, who own two houses in the posh locality of South Delhi, do not have the facilities of Tv, Fridge, and coolers, particularly when according to the allegations of the respondents, the petitioners have got the facilities of telephone at their residence and at their working place. It has of course not been denied. It is hard to comprehend and believe that the petitioners are only having an income of Rs. 1000.00 to Rs. 1500.00 per month. It is also unbelievable that respondent No. 3 who is an Advocate by profession in Delhi is having an income of less than Rs. 1500.00 per month. It has also been held that persons with such a meagre income cannot arrange houses in posh locality such as Green Park, New Delhi. All the petitioners have not disclosed the nature of business. In these circumstances, it is not possible to believe the bald statement of the petitioners that they are not in a position to arrange the alternative accommodation/shop if evicted from the disputed shop. The learned Competent Authority has. arrived at a specific and categories finding that the petitioners have not disclosed their means of income and status just to defeat this petition. Otherwise, it would have been abundantly clear that they have handsome income and enjoy good financial status and are in a position to arrange alternative accommodation if evicted from the demised shop.

(6) The petitioners aggrieved by the said judgment of the Competent Authority preferred the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Competent Authority has, to take into account cumulative effect of all the factors specified in Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act.

(7) Before examining the veracity of the submissions of the learned Counsel, it would be desirable to properly comprehend Section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The said Section reads as under :- "19.Proceedings for eviction of tenants not to be taken without permission of the Competent Authority. (1) ................................... (4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under Sub-section (3), the Competent Authority shall take into account the following factors, namely - (a) whether alternative accommodation within the meaning of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted; (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas; (c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed. (5)

(8) The interpretation of this very section of the Act came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Punnu Ram v. Chiranji Lal Gupta . The Court laid down as under -- "AS is apparent from a reading of the Preamble the legislative intent of a social legislation of the type with which we are concerned is to attain an objective and in the intervening period to provide protection to what may be called, the weaker Section of the society. A careful study of the substantive provisions of the Act would bring out this objective even better and we shall be dealing with the same. Suffice it to say at this stage that the objective of this legislation is to eradicate the evil of slums by improving and clearing them either singly or collectively. In the transitional period, till that is done, the weaker section of the society is to be protected."

(9) After examining the legislative intention and the cases decided by the Supreme Court, the Court clearly came to the conclusion that the conditions mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 19 are conditions in the alternative and did not have to be read cumulatively. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, there is no merit in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(10) Mr. Sachdeva, learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the learned Competent Authority has considered the means of the tenants but has failed to consider the cost of acquiring another accommodation by the tenant.

(11) The learned Counsel placed, reliance on Krishan Lal v. Smt. Ramo Devi, . In this case, the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that alternative accommodation within the meaning of Clause (a) of Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, would be an accommodation which it may be open to the tenant to utilise as an alternative to the one from which he may be sought to be evicted.

(12) Learned Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on Om Parkash v. Lachman Dass, and Raja Ram Dattv. DX. Poddar, 1972 R.C.R. 939. Tatachari, J. in the case of Raja Ram held that of the two joint tenants, one of the tenants was a man of means while the other was not a man of means. The latter, however, was not living in the suit premises. One was not entitled to protection because he was a man of means and the latter was not entitled because he was not living in the suit premises and the Court held that they have no protection under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The analogy which the learned Counsel has drawn from this case is that income of the individual tenant must be considered and if that is construed so, then one of the petitioners who was not earning would get the protection of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent repudiated the contentions of the petitioner on the strength of Bakshish Singh v. Padam Narain, 1972 R.C.R. 81. In this case, the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as under :- "JOINT tenancies having been created and eviction being sought in pursuance of a decree which is against both the respondents, there is no option but to proceed to determine the case on the basis that the requirement of the Statute i.e. Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act will have to be satisfied with respect to both the tenants treating them as one unit. In such a case, the requirement of the Statute cannot be said to be fulfillled by splitting up the tenancy and treating each tenant as separate unit. There is no warrant in law for the authority under the Act to split a joint tenancy into an undivided independent tenancies."

(13) Therefore, in view of the direct decision of this Court, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners seems to be devoid of any merit and has to be rejected.

(14) The learned Counsel also submitted that the Competent Authority has erred in not considering the cost of acquiring another accommodation by the tenant which is the mandate of Section 19(4) of the Act. The learned Competent Authority in great detail has examined this point. He has mentioned that the petitioners own two big houses in South Delhi, one at F-90, Green Park, New Delhi and another property at R-l, Green Park, New Delhi. Property No. F-90, Green Park, New Delhi is built over an area of 300 sq. yds and is a two-storeyed building from the front and three-storeyed building from the back. Another property No. R-l, Green Park, New Delhi, is built over an area of 200 sq. yds. There are seven shops in the ground floor of the property and it is a 2-1/2 storeyed building. Three shops having been let out at a monthly rent of approximately Rs. 3000 and 4 shops are under use and occupation of the petitioners. The petitioners are enjoying the telephone facility in both these buildings i.e. F-90 and R-l, Green Park, New Delhi. The Competent Authority arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners own two houses in Green Park and have substantial business and are also enjoying telephone facility at their residence. The learned Competent Authority held that in these circumstances it cannot be accepted that the income of the petitioners is Rs. 1000 to Rs. 1500.00 per month or that the petitioner No. 3 who is a lawyer by profession in Delhi is having an income less than Rs. 1500.00 . The Competent Authority also came to the conclusion that the petitioners have not disclosed their income and status just to defeat the petition. In this background, the learned Competent Authority has held that it is not possible to believe the bald statement of the petitioners that they are not in a position to arrange alternative shop if evicted from the disputed shop.

(15) The learned Competent Authority also held that the petitioners have not disclosed the means, income and status just to defeat the petition. Otherwise, it is abundantly clear that they have hand some means and income and enjoy good status and that leads to the condusion that they are in a position to arrange for an alternative accommodation if evicted from the demised premises. It was submitted that the Competent Authority was fully justified in deciding eviction petition in favour of the landlord looking to the affluent financial status of the tenants. The tenants are in a position to arrange for alternative shop if evicted from the disputed shop and in this background, he granted them permission to file a suit for eviction.

(16) Another submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no material on record to come to the condusion that Green Park is a posh colony because no evidence to that effect has been led. There is no merit in the submission. Even if there is no specific evidence to this effect. The Competent Authority was not unjustified in arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners arc living in a posh area. The Tribunal and/or the Court would be justified to take judicial notice of the facts which are universally accepted.

(17) The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the finding of the Competent Authority that the petitioners have deliberately withheld their sources of income and have not disclosed their income correctly and looking to their status and the fact that they own two houses in South Delhi and are maintaining those houses would lead to the conclusion that their income must be to the tune of Rs. 25,000.00 per month. Looking to the affluent financial status of the petitioners and in view of the conclusion, it cannot be difficult for the petitioners to acquire another shop if evicted from the shop in question.

(18) The area of the shop is 360 sq. ft. and is at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 . The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on some of the decisions of this Court where a method of determination of means to acquire alternative accommodation, residential and commercial, according to Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act have been given. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments of the Court: (1)Mukh Ram v. Smt. Ashrafi Devi and Another, [CM (M) 50 of 1970 decided on July 14, 1971]; (2) Smt. Raj Rani v. Amar Nath & Others,. (CM (Main) Nu.l03 of 1971, decided on 13.12.1971] (3) Smt. Raj Rani v. Dwarka Dass & Others, [CM (Main) 105 of 1971, decided on 13.12.1971] (4) Smt. Sakina Begum & Others v. Competent Authority, (writ petition decided on 23.2.1973); (5) Kishan Lalv. H. C. Arora & Another, (writ petition decided on 7.5.1973).

(19) In these cases, a formula of payment of rent at the rate of 75 paise or rupee one per sq.ft. per month was laid down by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi for non residential accommodation outside slum areas, which a tenant was expected to spend in case of his eviction. If that formula is accepted, then there would be no difficulty for the petitioners to find an alternative accommodation/shop in case of their eviction. He submitted that otherwise also the petitioners are financially sound and affluent and in any event they cannot have any difficulty in acquiring any shop in case of their eviction.

(20) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and examined the relevant provisions and the relevant decided cases of this Court. I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Competent Authority. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution must be exercised in extremely exceptional cases where the tribunals or the Courts did not function within the limits of their authority.

(21) The Apex Court had the occasion to consider the scope of Article 227(1) of the Constitution in Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre v. Pathankhan and Others, , where the Court had held that power under Article 227 of the Constitution was limited to seeing that the Subordinate Tribunals function within the limits of their a uthority The High Court cannot sit in appeal against the order of such Tribunal in petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(22) In view of the settled position of law and after examining the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956,1 do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order of the Competent Authority. The petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 2,000.00 .