Delhi High Court
Nannu Ram vs Parbhati Devi on 21 October, 2005
Author: J Singh
Bench: J Singh
ORDER
J.P. Singh, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the tenant is directed against the order dated 18.7.2005 passed by the Competent Authority (Slums) granting permission to the landlord to file an eviction petition against the tenant.
2. I have heard Sh. R.K. Bharti learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant on the point of admission and have gone through the impugned order and the copies of the documents placed on the file.
3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent-landlord herein (applicant before the Competent Authority-hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act for grant of permission to file an eviction petition against the tenant-petitioner herein (respondent-tenant before the Competent Authority, hereinafter referred to as "tenant") under Delhi Rent Control Act. The applicant had let out one shop to the tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 130/- exclusive of electricity & water charges. It seems that the relations got strained and the tenant filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the landlady which ended in a compromise where statement was made on behalf of the landlady that she will not dispossess the tenant without due recourse to law.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlady was allotted 25 sq. yards of plot but she encroached upon more public / government land and was not the actual owner and that the rate of rent was Rs. 300/- and further that a loan of Rs. 4 lac was given to the landlady and her son and the said shop was lying mortgaged with him. The tenant, however reserved his right to take legal action on the basis of some documents.
5. It was pleaded that the tenant was unable to have alternative accommodation anywhere outside the slum areas and that the Competent Authority had wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs. 10,000/- per month though he is earning Rs. 5,000/-per month from the tailoring work in the said shop, but no written proof of the income can be furnished because it is the small-scale work and that he belongs to a poor family. He also submitted that the alternative accommodation available to the tenant was located in a congested area with no business activity and the said accommodation was a residential one.
6. I have gone through the impugned order wherein the competent authority has opined that the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted and that only relevant consideration was to see whether the tenant has sufficient means to acquire alternative accommodation at a place which is not a slum area. Admittedly the tenant has alternative accommodation at L-6, Majnu Ka Tilla. The Competent Authority assessed the income of the tenant as Rs. 10,000/- per month. Admittedly the tenant has no proof of his income. Surprisingly the tenant alleged that he had given a loan of Rs. 4 lac to the landlord & her son. In my view only a person having money, enough and to spare can given such a huge amount as a loan. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner that he has no sufficient means to acquire an alternative accommodation in a non-slum area does not appeal to reason.
7. Moreover, the petitioner has taken altogether contradictory stands like being poor and advancing loan of Rs. 4 lac, challenging the title of the landlady and admitting her to be the landlady in the civil suit. Needless to say that under Section 116 of the Evidence Act a tenant can not challenge the title of the landlord. Considering all the facts and circumstances in my view the impugned order is not perverse which may lead to manifest injustice so as to invite interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition, is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
