JYOTI PERSHAD MAHTAB SINGH SURENDAR DEV GAUR Vs. ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions have been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of S. 19 and particularly sub-sec. 3, of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (Central Act 96 of 1956), on the ground that it offends the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed to them by Arts. 14 and 19(1)(f).

(2.) To appreciate the grounds on which this contention is sought to be sustained it is necessary to set out briefly a few facts. We might however mention that though the constitutional objection, adverted to is common to all the three petitions, it is sufficient to refer to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 67 of 1959 which is typical of the cases before us.

(3.) The petitioner-Jyoti Pershad-is the owner of a house in Delhi in which respondents 3 to 11 were tenants. Each of these nine individuals occupied a single room in this house. As the petitioner considered the house to be old and required to be demolished and reconstructed, he submitted a plan to the Council of the Delhi Municipal Committee and applied for sanction for the reconstruction of the house. The plan was sanctioned and thereafter the petitioner filed suits against these nine tenants under S. 13(1)(g) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 38 of 1952 (which will hereafter be referred to as the Rent Control Act). The suits were resisted by the tenants. Two matters had to be proved under S. 13(1)(g) of the Rent Control Act by a plaintiff before he could obtain an order of eviction:(i) that there was a plan which had been sanctioned by the municipal authorities which made provision for the tenants then in occupation of the house being accommodated in the house as reconstructed, and (ii) that the plaintiff had the necessary funds to carry out the reconstruction. The plan which had been approved by the Delhi Municipal Committee made provision for the construction of a double-storeyed building with twelve rooms which was, therefore, more than ample for the nine tenants for whom accommodation had to be provided. The plaintiff also established that he had deposited cash in the State Bank of India sufficient for reconstructing the house as sanctioned in the plan. On December 8, 1956, the Civil Court in Delhi passed decrees in favour of the petitioner for the eviction of respondents 3 to 11. Section 15 of the Rent Control Act enacted: