- (1.) The petitioner impugns an order dated 03.04.2012 of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereafter referred to as the 'impugned order'). By the impugned order, the Competent Authority has allowed the application of the respondent under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereafter the 'Act') to initiate the proceedings for eviction of the petitioner from a shop occupied by the petitioner in Khari Baoli, Delhi.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the impugned order is erroneous and is barred by the principles of res judicata. It is further contended that the petition filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Act was not maintainable as the respondent was not the landlord of the premises in question. The controversy that has to be addressed in the present petition is whether the application under Section 19 of the Act was barred by principles of res judicata and whether the same was maintainable at the instance of the respondent.
(3.) Briefly stated the relevant facts for considering the controversy are as under:- 3.1 The petitioner is, admittedly, a tenant in a shop on the Ground Floor in the property bearing No.6630, Khari Baoli, Delhi (hereafter the 'said property') at a monthly rent of Rs. 110/-. It was further stated that the petitioner is liable to pay chabutra charges @ Rs. 384 per annum beside the monthly rent of Rs. 110/- for the said property. 3.2 The respondent had earlier filed an application under Section 19 of the Act (bearing no. CA(S)/9156/1997) before the Competent Authority which was contested by the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to pursue the said petition and the same was dismissed in default on 01.11.2006. 3.3 Subsequently, the respondent filed another petition under Section 19 of the Act (being CA(S)/38/2009) on 25.05.2009 seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings on several grounds including non-payment of rent, sub-letting, misuse and damage to the said property. The said petition was allowed by the Competent Authority by the impugned order dated 03.04.2012. 3.4 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.;