ISMAIL Vs. M K RAI
LAWS(DLH)-1983-2-21
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 18,1983

MOHAMMAD ISMAIL Appellant
VERSUS
M.K.RAI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

D C BHATIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1991-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA DEVI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-4-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Prakash Narain, J. - (1.)By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constititution of India the petitioner challenges the order dated April II, 1972 passed by the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 whereby permission was granted to Smt. Maina Devi and Shri Sumer Chand, owners/landlords of the property occupied by the petitioner for commencing eviction proceedings against him.
(2.)Petitioner resides in property No. 1444-45, Gali Fayyazgan J, Bahadurgarh Road, Delhi. The monthly rent was Rs. 5.50 per month. The owners/landlords filed an application under Section 19 of the aforesaid Act for permission to start eviction proceedings. The grounds given were that the petitioner was in arrears of rent though he had means to pay the rent and property was required bonafide by the owners/landlords for themselves. The Competent Authority rightly come to the conclusion that the question of arrears of rent was not a matter which he is to decide. He had to only see whether the petitioner if evicted would create slums or whether he had means to take alternative accommodation. On the evidence led before the Competent Authority by affidavit the Competent Authority came to the conclusion that the total income of the petitioner and members of his family including his daughter-in-law was Rs. 650.00 per month. Such that amount if petitioner was to pay 12% by way of rent which would come to Rs. 78.00 per month he Could well afford to take another premises of more or less the same dimension which were personally occupied and would thus not create slum-
(3.)The challenge to this decision is on two grounds. First, that daughter-in-law's income could not be clubbed with the income of other members of petitioner's family to arrive at the figure of Rs. 650.00 and secondly, that there was no basis for the figure of Rs. 78.00 per month, which, according to the Competent Authority, the petitioner could afford to pay by way of rent.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.