MURARI LAL CHET RAM BADUL Vs. P C SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of five petitions (C.M. (Main) Nos. 24, 25, 39, 267 and 268 of 1974) can be disposed of by one judgment as common questions of law and fact arise. These petitions under article 227 of the Constitution are by the tenants and their challenge is to an order of the Competent Authority constituted under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (for short 'the Act') granting permission under Section 19(l)(a) of the Act to the respondent-landlords to institute proceedings for eviction against the petitioners.

(2.) The order in the case of petitions by Murari Lal (C.M. (M) 25/7-1) Chet Ram (CM.(M) 25/74) and Badlu(C,M. (M) 39/74) is of Mr. P.O. Sharma, Competent Authority, and is dated 22-10-1973. In the other two petitions ofPooran Chand (C.M. (M) 267/74) and Jayanti Pershad (C.M. (M) 268/74), the impugned order is dated 3-8-1974 and was passed by Mr. G.C. Jain, Competent Authority. The order in the first three petitions is common. The premises in question are a big house situated in the slum area to which the provisions of the Act apply and is occupied by various tenants. The tenanted premises mostly consisted of one room with common latrine and bath-room in the house. It is stated that the tenants are poor people working as hawkers and have been paying nominal rent being old tenants. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, claiming to be owner and landlords of the premises, filed various applications under Section 19(l)(a) of the Act. The applications were filed in the fm prescribed. In para 4 of the form, the applicant is to mention the grounds on which eviction of the tenant is sought. The respondents gave varying grounds for eviction of the tenants like nonpayment of rent subletting, causing damage to the tenanted premises, etc. One ground was however common and this was that the premises were in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and unless reconstruction was done, there was a danger of the same collapsing. It was stated that the landlords, therefore, required the premises bona fide for the purpose of building or rebuilding i,i terms of the sanctioned plan granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It was further stated that this building or rebuilding process was not possible and could not be carried out without the premises having been vacated by the tenant. Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Act prescribes the factors which are to be taken into account by the competent authority while granting or refusing to grant permission and these are:-

(3.) The competent authority did not decide the status of the petitioners whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenants would be available to them, if they were evicted. It held that it was not necessary so to decide as the case of the landlords fell under clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 19 inasmuch as the landlords had got a valid sanctioned plan for reconstruction of the entire building from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It was observed that clauses (a) and (b) mentioned above were only alternative and not cumulative and, therefore, it was in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas that the tenants in occupation might bs evicted so that the property might be reconstructed and, therefore, in that case, it was observed, there was hardly any occasion to consider the means of the tenants. Reference was made to a Bench decision of this Court in C.R. Abrol v. Administrator under the Slum Areas and others (ILR (1970) I Delhi 768). The competent authority also referred to notices served on the respondent-landlords under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act on the ground that the building in which the tenanted preanises were situated was in a dangerous conditions. The respondent-landlords also brought on record certified copy of the sanctioned plan for reconstruction of the whole building.