Vijay Prakash Verma vs H.L. Srivastva (Since Deceased) ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 4490 Del

*                THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             CM (M) 842/2012

                                               Date of Decision: 30.07.2012


VIJAY PRAKASH VERMA                                  ....PETITIONER
                 Through:                Mr. H.S.Shaikh, Adv. with
                                         Mr.Manu Nayar, Adv.


                                    Versus



H.L. SRIVASTVA (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRs.                                       ......RESPONDENTS

                              Through:


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks to assail the order dated 25.04.2012 of the Competent Authority (Slums). The respondent had filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (for short the 'Act') seeking permission of the Competent Authority to initiate eviction proceedings from the suit premises consisting of one room one small kitchen on the first floor of the property bearing No. 2089, Katra Gokul Shah, Kucha Aqil Khan, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. The

present respondents were substituted in place of their predecessor, being his LRs. In the aforesaid application under Section 19 of the Act, the plea of the petitioner was that he is the owner/landlord of the suit premises, having purchased the same from previous owner Smt. Prakash Kaur by virtue of agreement to sell, and that there being no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner therein (predecessors-in-interest of the respondent), the said application was not maintainable. The Competent Authority allowed the application and granted permission to the respondent to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioner. The Competent Authority recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was claiming to be the owner of the suit premises only on the basis of a photocopy of agreement to sell, which did not confer in him, any title in the suit premises, being hit by Section 17 and Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. He also recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was undisputedly a tenant under the previous owner Smt. Prakash Kaur, and that the respondent had purchased the suit premises from her by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28.09.2000. He also recorded a finding of fact that undisputedly, the petitioner was initially inducted in the suit premises as a tenant. He accordingly held that, based on preliminary enquiry, prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is established. With regard to the financial status of the petitioner, it was observed by the Competent Authority that the plea of the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month, is unbelievable and, he having not placed anything on record as regard to his financial status, it was to be

presumed that he was financially well enough and shall not create any further slum, if evicted from the suit premises.

2. The impugned order is assailed on the similar grounds which were taken before the Competent Authority. Various judgments have been cited to contend that the issue regarding ownership could not be decided by the Rent Controller in the eviction petition and that, if there was a dispute raised by the tenant as regard to the ownership of the property, the same was to be decided by Civil Court and not the Rent Controller and, further that till such decision of the Civil Court, the proceedings before the Rent Controller need to be stayed.

3. There is certainly no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as laid in the judgments, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the question of title of the tenanted premises could be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Rent Controller. However, none of the judgments which have been cited by the petitioner, would apply to the present case. In the instant case, the respondent's application was under Section 19 of the Act, which provided that the eviction of the tenant could not be taken without the permission of the Competent Authority. The nature of proceedings which were to be conducted by the Competent Authority contemplated summary enquiry into the circumstances as it think fit to grant or refuse the permission. The scope of enquiry that was to be conducted was very limited. In the instant case, the petitioner has disputed the ownership of the respondent and claimed himself to be the owner of the suit premises, on the basis of

agreements to sell dated 07.05.1990 and 27.07.1984 and that the entire consideration amount had been paid to Smt. Prakash Kaur. This has been prima facie disbelieved by the Competent Authority and rightly so. The agreements to sell dated 07.05.1990 and 27.07.1984 and payment of some amounts on various dates, as mentioned in Para 1 of the instant petition, would not legally transfer the title in the suit premises in favour of the petitioner. The title in the suit premises could only be acquired by way of registered document as per the mandate of Section 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act. There is no dispute that the petitioner came to occupy the suit premises as a tenant under Smt. Prakash Kaur. On the other hand, the respondent had purchased the suit premises by virtue of registered sale deed and certainly has a better title than the petitioner. Though the title of the suit premises was not required to be determined by the Competent Authority in the proceedings under Section 19 of the Act, but in view of the adverse claim sought to be set up by the petitioner, the prima facie view had to be formed by the Competent Authority to see the competence of the respondent to maintain the petition. In the given facts when the petitioner initially came to occupy the suit premises as a tenant and in the absence of there being a valid document of title in his favour, the prima facie view of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, would stand established. There does not appear to be any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Competent Authority in this regard.

4. With regard to the financial status, the Competent Authority was also required to take into account whether alternative accommodation

was within the means of the tenant if he was to be evicted. The petitioner had averred his income to be Rs. 1500/- per month, which was rightly disbelieved by the Competent Authority. It is settled law that the onus, to prove the non-availability of means to arrange alternative accommodation, lies on the tenant, as information regarding his income and resources was within his special knowledge. The petitioner having given a vague and bald statement of his income to be Rs. 1500/- per month, unsupported with any document or other material, seems to have withheld the best evidence available with him in this regard. Consequently, the Competent Authority was justified in drawing an adverse inference against him in this regard. I could not see any illegality on this aspect of the finding of the Competent Authority as well.

5. In view of the discussion above, I do not see any reason to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution warranting the interference in the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

JULY 30, 2012/akb