AMIR CHAND RUSTAGI Vs. M K RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing theorder dated 27/07/1970 of the Competent Authority(Mr. M.K. Rai) constituted under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred toas the 'Slums Act. By the impugned order the Competent Authority granted permission to respondents nos.2 and 3, hereinafter referred to as "The Respondents", toexecute the order of eviction that had been passed againstthe petitioner.

(2.) The respondents are the owners of a two storeyedhouse bearing municipal no. 1313, Vaidwara Maliwara, in ward No. V in Delhi. The petitioner has beenin occupation of the first floor of this house as a tenantfor over 22 years. In 1962, the respondents filed a petition under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against the petitioner for his eviction from the tenancy premises on the ground of bonafide requirement.An order of eviction was passed against the petitionerby the Rent Controller on 3/12/1964 and the petitioner failed to get this order set aside in the appealfiled by him before the Rent Control Tribunal.In 1966, the respondents applied under Section 19 ofthe Slums Act to the Competent Authority for permission to execute the aforesaid order of eviction. TheCompetent Authority refused to grant the permissionby its order dated 4/10/1967. The CompetentAuthority came to the conclusion that the petitionerhad an income of Rs. 125.00 as his salary from M/s.Devi Sahai Madan Lal and his son Kishan Chandhad an income of Rs. 150.00 per mensem as salary fromM/s. Nathu Ram Ram Narain where he was employed.The Competent Authority concluded that the aggregate income of Rs. 275.00 per mensem of the petitionerand his son Kishan Chand was not sufficient for a familyof four members. The appeal filed by the respondentswas dismissed on 17/08/1968 by the appellateauthority.

(3.) After a few months, on 18/04/1969 the respondentsfiled a fresh application under Section 19 of the SlumsAct before the Competent Authority alleging that thepetitioner was able to obtain other residential accommodation, out of slums, as there had been a considerable increase in his means. In reply, the petitioneradmitted that although his income and the income ofhis son had increased, he had become poorer as the pricesof necessities had increased at a higher rate. In supportof the application, respondent no. 3 filed an affidavit on 15/10/1969 stating that the salaryof the petitioner and his son had gone upto Rs. 200.00per month each and there was an increase of Rs. 125.00per month in their aggregate income. It was furtheralleged that the income of the petitioner's family wasRs. 450, per mensem and there was a saving of Rs. 100.00per mensem as the petitioner's son had liquidated the loanwhich had been taken by him from a Chit Fund;that the petitioner had himself taken a Chit for Rs.5,000.00 in his own name which was payable in instalments of Rs. 100.00 per month and that the petitioner'sson was earning Rs. 100.00 per month from tuition-fees. The petitioner filed his counter-affidavit on 25/11/1969 in which he stated that at the time of theprevious application in 1966, his total income wasRs. 175.00 per month out of which, Rs. 125.00 per monthwas as salary from M/s. Devi Sahai Madan Lal andRs. 50.00 per month was income from making paperenvelopes while in 1969 his entire income was only Rs. 200.00per month as salary from the aforesaid firm ashe had given up making paper envelopes on accountof his old age. He further stated that the income ofhis son was Rs. 200.00 per month ; that he was not doingany tuition work nor had he any other income. Itwas, therefore, averred that against an income of Rs. 325.00 in 1966, the petitioner's income in 1969 was Rs. 400.00 when the prices of ail the commodities had increasedat a higher ratio. The petitioner denied having takena chit of Rs. 5,000.00 in his own name from M/s. Million-tex Finance Company Private Ltd. On 14/01/1970, the respondents filed an application before theCompelent Authority for adducing additional evidence.The respondents wanted to prove that the income ofthe petitioner and his son had increased from Rs. 275.00to Rs. 550.00 per month : that the petitioner and hisson were saving Rs. 200.00 per month as the amountsdue on the two chits had been satisfied and the petitioner owned a plot of land worth Rs. 5,000.00 in Shahdra.The petitioner replied to this application and in thisreply it was admitted that the salary income of thepetitioner and his son was Rs. 400.00 The other allegations were denied. On 16/04/1970 the petitioner'sson filed an affidavit in support of the reply filed by thepetitioner stating that his salary was Rs. 270.00 per mensemand that the petitioner had to leave his job on accountof old age and failing eye sight and was now drawinga salary of only Rs. 100.00 per mensem from M/s. NawalKishore Rajinder Kishore and that the aggregate incomeof the petitioner and his son was Rs. 270.00. There wasno denial of the allegation of the respondents that thepetitioner owned a plot in Shahdra. On 30/05/1970 the Competent Authority has recorded an orderthat the petitioner's application be taken on record andthat the respondents did not want to adduce any evidencein rebuttal. It may here be stated that no affidavitwas filed by the petitioner himself, stating that his salaryhad been reduced from Rs. 200.00 to Rs. 100.00 per mensern.The Competent Authority passed the impugned orderon 22/07/1970 and assessing the aggregate income ofthe petitioner ?nd his son at Rs. 470.00 per mensern expressed the view that the petitioner had the means to arrangealternative accommodation and granted the permissionto execute the aforesaid order of eviction.