Ganesh Pal vs Rajinder Prashad And Anr.
2005 Latest Caselaw 647 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This petition challenges the order passed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') passed by the competent authority granting permission to the respondent landlord for instituting eviction proceedings against the petitioner. An earlier order granting such permission was passed on 9th May, 1992 and on 3rd November, 1992 in appeal the Financial Commissioner set aside that order in respect of means and income of the petitioner and thus the matter was remanded for fresh determination in respect of the plea of the respondent that the petitioner had sufficient means to secure alternate accommodation and his eviction and subsequent displacement would not create a slum. Pursuant to the remand the impugned order dated 24th October, 1996 was passed by the Competent Authority, which has found inter-alia after examining the evidence as follows:-

(a) That the petitioner was employing 5 persons to assist him in manufacturing and polishing gold sets.

(b) That the petitioner has a residential house at rent at Bhogal.

(c) That Shri Rakesh Kumar, a witness of the petitioner himself stated that the petitioner was earning Rs.2500/- per month and it was also found that the work was undertaken in night on urgent basis also.

(d) Whether or not 5 employees were apprentices who had come from Bengal to learn trade from the petitioner, nevertheless the petitioner had sufficient income to provide them food and clothing.

(e) That the petitioner was running two establishments in Delhi for himself and those working under him and another one at Calcutta. Therefore, it cannot be believed that he was earning only Rs.1500/- per month.

2. In view of these findings, the competent authority granted the permission to the respondent to file eviction proceedings against the petitioner, which order has been challenged by the present petition.

3. In my view, the findings recorded by the competent authority are fully justified and are mere findings of fact and the learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to dislodge any of the above findings. The findings clearly indicate that the requirements of Section 19(1)(a) of the Act have been fully satisfied. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed accordingly.