Mohinder Malhotra vs Ramesh Maheshwari
2012 Latest Caselaw 3406 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Judgment:21.05.2012

+              CM (M)No.606/2012 & CM No.9276-77/2012


MOHINDER MALHOTRA                    ...............Petitioner
            Through:            Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Adv.

                    Versus

RAMESH MAHESHWARI                    ...............Respondent
           Through:             Nemo.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Order impugned is dated 14.3.2012; this is an order passed by the

Sidhartha Sharma, Competent Authority under the Slum Area

(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the

"said Act").

2 Record shows that Ramesh Maheshwari had filed an eviction

petition under Section 19 of the said Act seeking permission of the

Competent Authority to initiate eviction proceedings against the

respondent Mohinder Malhotra (petitioner before this Court) for his

eviction qua the premises comprising of one shop forming part of

property bearing No.4659, Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri,

Delhi. Averment was that the property was located in a slum area;

parties share relationship of landlord and tenant; rate of rent is Rs.300/-;

permission be accorded to the petitioner to initiate eviction proceedings

against his tenant. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner was

represented before the Competent Authority. His contention was that

Baldev Raj Malhotra was the original tenant; after his death he has been

termed as an "unauthorized occupant" and as such there is no

relationship of landlord and tenant. This is also the vehement argument

which has been urged before this Court. The tenant had made a bald

submission that he is not financially sound but no such document had

been brought on record to show that his income is meager and he is not

in a position to afford an alternate accommodation elsewhere.

Contention of the tenant was that he is earning Rs.8000/- per month and

per contra submission of the landlord was that the tenant was earning

more than Rs.40,000/- per month. No document has been placed on

record by the tenant to substantiate this submission either. Court had

returned an adverse inference for not producing the best evidence qua

this position as these the facts could only be known to the tenant

himself. It was in this background the application of the petitioner

under Section 19 of the said Act had been allowed.

3 The scope of the said Act has also been perused. Right of appeal

under Section 20 of the said Act is available only to the landlord who is

the person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 19 whereby the

Competent Authority has refused permission under Section 19(1) of the

said Act. Appeal lies to the Administrator. The remedy of the tenant is

by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which

is the powers of superintendence of this Court.

4 The vehement arguments urged before this Court is that there is

no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; the other co-

owners have not been joined. A perusal of the reply filed by the

petitioner before the Competent Authority show that no such objection

had been made before the Competent Authority. In para 6 contention

was that the petition under Section 19 of the said Act is not maintainable

because of non-joinder of necessary parties as the other legal heairs of

the original tenant Baldev Raj Malhotra have not been joined. The non-

joinder of the other legal representatives does not merit any objection as

admittedly the original tenant in this case was Baldev Raj Malhotra and

his legal heir Mahender Malhotra was representing him in his capacity

as a legal heir; all the tenants inherited the property from the original

tenant as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. This objection

has no merit. No objection has been raised by the petitioner about the

non-joinder of the other co-owners as has been urged today before this

Court. On a specific query learned counsel for the petitioner states that

he is not pressing this objection. The next objection raised by the

petitioner is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant; this

argument appears prima facie to be false as admittedly the father of the

petitioner namely Baldev Raj Malhotra was the tenant and the present

petitioner namely Mahender Malhotra has stepped into the shoes of his

father; he is having no other better status than his father Baldev Raj

Malhotra; as such this submission is also without any merit. No other

argument has been pressed. It has been pointed out to learned counsel

for the petitioner that all other arguments which the petitioner seeks to

raise before this Court can well be taken up by him at the time when

appropriate proceedings are taken by the landlord Ramesh Maheshwari.

This also appears to the intent of the legislature as can be gauged from

the fact that Section 20 of the said Act provides for a remedy of appeal

only to the landlord and not to a tenant. Reliance by the counsel for the

petitioner upon 26(1984) DLT 452 Mahinder Kumar Khandelwal Vs.

Padam Chand is misplaced.

5 This petition is an abuse of the process of the court. Dismissed

with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MAY 21, 2012 nandan