PADAM NARAIN Vs. G C JAIN
LAWS(DLH)-1983-11-24
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 03,1983

PADAM NARAIN Appellant
VERSUS
G.C.JAIN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

RATNAKAR GAJANAN GODAMBE VS. RATNAPRABHA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1990-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL WAHID VS. HAMEED MIAN [LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR BARAL VS. C.E.S.C. LTD., VICTORIA HOUSE AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1993-2-46] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.L.ANAND - (1.)This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings for leave to execute an eviction order made in November, 1963 and the proceedings between the parties have had a rather chequered career.
(2.)The premises in dispute consisting of first floor, comprising one room, two small tin sheds, a verandah covered by a tin shed, and a courtyard called a terrace, and forms (art of house No. VHI/963, Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, which was purchased by Bakshish Singh and Ran Singh Rana in February 1956. Padam Narain and bis brother Santosh Narain had been in occupation of the first floor as tenants since before the purchase. The owners sought ejectment of the tenants in February, 1959, but failed in the attempt. Fresh proceedings for the ejectment of the tenants waa filed in November, 1963 on the ground at personal need and an order of ejectment was made by the then Rent Controller on November 4, 1963. The landlord sought leave to execute the ejectment order but the Competent Authority turned down the plea by an order of August 11, 1965. The order of the Competent Authority was upheld in appeal by the then judicial secretary, acting as the Appellate Authority in 1969. The owners moved this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution being Civil Writ Petition No. 1382/67. The appellate order was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the Competent Authority. Before the appellate authority, however, the owners withdrew the petition for leave to execute the order. In December, 1967, the owners filed a fresh petition for leave and by an order of October 10, 1975 the Competent Authority granted leave. The present petition was filed by the tenants on November 11, 1975.
(3.)The competent authority considered the question if the tenants were persons of sufficient means and status so as to be able to acquire alternative accommodation, within their means, without creating slum elsewhere. It found that one of the tenants Padam Narain, who was in the employment of a private company, has since retired and the question of taking into account his income did not arise. The Competent Authority, however, found that the son of Padam Narain was, nevertheless, an earning member and came to the conclusion that the income of Santosh Narain and son of Padam Narain worked to Rs. 1,322.00 p. m. The Competent Authority further found that the covered area of the premises in dispute was about 421 sq. ft. and that the tenants could acquire an alternative accommodation of equal size for Rs. 147.35 p. m. at the rate of 35 p. per sq. ft. and that the tenants Were, therefore, in a position to acquire alternative accommodation within their means without creating slum.. The Competent Authority, however, did not devote any attention to the question as to the total members of the family of the brothers and as to how much they would require for their sustenance in deciding the question before it.
;


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