Delhi High Court
Banarsi Das Ram Avtar vs Chandrakanta Agarwal & Anr on 30 May, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:30.05.2012
+ CM(M) 682/2012 & CM Nos.10309-10/2012
BANARSI DAS RAM AVTAR ..... Petitioner
Through Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, Adv.
versus
CHANDRAKANTA AGARWAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The order impugned is dated 21.03.2005 passed by the Competent
Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The permission sought
by the landlord for initiating eviction proceedings against his tenant had
been granted. The tenant is aggrieved by this finding. His contention is
that the there was no evidence with the trial Court to come to a
conclusion that the tenant has sufficient means to arrange for an
alternate accommodation in a non-slum area; in the absence of such
evidence, the impugned order granting permission to the landlord has
committed an illegality; basic requirements of Section 19 of the said Act
have not been fulfilled. Attention has been drawn to a document dated
08.10.1986 which is a lease deed and finds mention in the petition filed
by the landlord. Contention is that this document is a registered lease
deed which even otherwise grants permission to the tenant to sublet the
premises and as such no ground under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act (DRCA) would even otherwise be available to the
landlord. The submission that this registered lease deed is a registered
document does not find mention in the reply filed by the tenant to the
application under Section 19 of the said Act; on a specific query put to
the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count, he has no answer;
this being a registered document, why this was not mentioned in this
reply has not been explained. That apart the requirements of Section 19
of the said Act clearly stands fulfilled. Specific averment of the landlord
in this petition was that the tenant is an affluent man and he is in a
position to afford accommodation in a non-slum area; his telephone
numbers and fax numbers at his factory address had also been disclosed
as also his e-mail address. There is no specific denial to this submission;
in the corresponding para, the tenant has admitted that he is an income
tax payee; details of his income has also not been disclosed; Trial Court
had rightly drawn an adverse inference in not disclosing these facts
which were within the knowledge of the tenant alone. That apart, his
second submission that the ground under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA
would not be available to him is a defence which is sought to be set up
as whether the lease deed dated 08.10.1986 had vested any right to the
tenant to sublet the premises or not is an open question; in fact an appeal
had been filed against this order before the Financial Commissioner who
had dismissed it as not being maintainable.
2. Powers of superintendence have to be adverted to only if there is
a patent illegality or a perversity which has accrued to the applying
party. This is not one such case. Petition is without any merit.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 30, 2012
A
