V. P. SINGH,RATHOUR v. RAM KALI DEVI — 1985 DIGILAW 133 (DEL)

SUNANDA BHANDARE ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a practising advocate in Delhi. He started his independent practice in the year 1970 after having a judicial training with another advocate. The petitioner is a tenant of the premises consisting of one room. one kitchencum-store room, one latrine and bath-room in a building bearing No. 11199, Mandir Road, Doriwalan, D. C. Mills, Delhi, taken on rent from one Lala Rattan Lal, predecessor in interest of respondent No. 1 herein. On 14th March, 1970 the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 19 (1) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the slum Act ) before the Competent Authority. The respondent No. 1 wanted to institute a suit for obtaining a decree for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirement for herself and her family members as she had no reasonably suitable accommodation and also on the ground that the petitioner had already acquired alternate accommodation or was in any event in a postition to obtain alternate accommodation. The petitioner herein filed his written statement and, though he admitted that respondent No. 1 was the owner, denied all other allegations. The Competent Authority, after considering all the evidence and hearing the arguments of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the disputed premises were let out to the petitioner for residential purposes only and that the petitioner admittedly was in possession of another residential house No. 11200, Doriwalan, Delhi, as was evident from the ration-card filed by the petitioner, and held that since the petitioner was already in possession of another residential premises, there was no question of his creating slum in case he was evicted and, therefore, granted permission to the respondent No. 1 to file a suit for eviction. It is this order of the Competent Authority dated 14th March, 1971 which has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Competent Authority, while coming to the conclusion that alternate residential accommodation was available to the petitioner, did not consider the suitability of the accommodation. ( 2 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Competent Authority, while coming to the conclusion that alternate residential accommodation was available to the petitioner, did not consider the suitability of the accommodation. It was submitted that the petitioner, who is an advocate, is an active C. P. I. (M) worker and spends most of his time in helping people in the lower strata of society. The learned counsel submitted that at the time when the application under Section 19 was filed, the petitioner was a new entrant to the profession and his monthly income was less than Rs. 100. 00. It was stated that the deceased father of the petitioner had built an unauthorised house at Seelampur, Gonda and the petitioner had no interest in that. The house at Gonda was already under tenants, who were paying rent to the widowed mother of the petitioner. He further stated that the said house was already under demolition orders by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as the said house at Gonda was built in an unauthorised colony. It was stated that the petitioner at that time was learning the profession and was also using the disputed premises for his office. It was further contended that the petitioner s mother, along with her other dependents, was residing in the adjoining house and the petitioner being the eldest male member of the family had to stay near the family to look after their interest. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner could not arrange for suitable alternate accommodation within his means, particularly because his income was very meagre. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had sufficient means to find suitable alternate accommodation. The petitioner s brother, who formed a joint family with the petitioner, was employed with an American Pharmacy as Medical Representative and had monthly income of Rs. 1,000. 00. The property at Gonda which is owned by the petitioner contains four living rooms and two shops out of which three rooms were lying vacant and are in possession of the petitioner. It was also contended that the respondent required the premises apart from other reasons, for bona fide personal use. 1,000. 00. The property at Gonda which is owned by the petitioner contains four living rooms and two shops out of which three rooms were lying vacant and are in possession of the petitioner. It was also contended that the respondent required the premises apart from other reasons, for bona fide personal use. It was further contended that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not go into disputed questions of fact, and upset the positive findings of the Competent Authority that the petitioner was in possession of another residential house. It was contended that it was not necessary for the Competent Authority to find out whether the alternate accommodation was exactly similar to the accommodation occupied by the petitioner. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Competent Authority affidavits of two other advocates were filed to support the contention of the petitioner that he had very little practice. A certificate issued by Shri S. N. Mehta, Advocate to that effect was also filed. The respondent No. 1 had filed an affidavit of one Shri Sriram to support her contention. ( 5 ) A few days before the hearing of the case, an application was filed by the respondent bringing on record subsequent events which have taken place after the petition was admitted by this Court in the year 1971. It is stated in this application that the income of the petitioner has considerably gone up and he is now earning much more than what was proved and pleaded before the Competent Authority. It is also stated in this application that the petitioner has acquired a residential house in the name of his wife, Smt. Sheela Devi Rathour at Jagat Enclave, Indraprastha Estate, Shahdra, Delhi and that he stays in that house with his family. It is, therefore, submitted by way of this application that the subsequent events will show that now the petitioner s financial status has substantially improved and he has other better accommodation and, therefore, in any event now he was not likely to create slums if order of eviction is passed. It is, therefore, submitted by way of this application that the subsequent events will show that now the petitioner s financial status has substantially improved and he has other better accommodation and, therefore, in any event now he was not likely to create slums if order of eviction is passed. The petitioner filed a reply to this application and denied having acquired another accommodation at Shahdra, as stated by respondent No. 1 and further stated that the petitioner being an active C. P. I. (M) worker, his earnings are hardly sufficient for his bare living in these days of high inflation and soaring prices. The petitioner has also produced telephone bills and gas bills to show that the petitioner is still residing in the disputed premises. ( 6 ) I find from the record that though an appeal was provided under the Slum Act to the Financial Commissioner under Section 20, no appeal was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had, therefore, not availed of the alternate remedy available to him but had rushed to this Court and filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The plea thatthe petitioner had alternate remedy available to him was also not taken by the respondent at the time of the hearing. Since 13 years have elapsed. From the time the petition was admitted, I do not think that it is in the interest of justice to reject the petition and refuse to interfere on the ground that alternate remedy was available to the petitioner. ( 7 ) SECTION 19 (4) of the Slum Act requires that in granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (3) of Section 19, the Competent Authority should ascertain whether alternate accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted. For this purpose two factors are to be considered : (A) whether alternate accommodation is already available with him; and (B) whether financial status of the tenant was such that he could find suitable alternate accommodation. ( 8 ) THE purpose of the said provision is to see that the tenant would not create another slum if he were evicted. The Competent Authority while deciding the application filed by the respondent, did not consider the financial status of the petitioner, however, gave a clear finding regarding the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE purpose of the said provision is to see that the tenant would not create another slum if he were evicted. The Competent Authority while deciding the application filed by the respondent, did not consider the financial status of the petitioner, however, gave a clear finding regarding the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner. There is no doubt that suitability of the accommodation has to be taken into account while deciding whether the tenant was likely to create slums if he were evicted from the premises but it does not mean that the alternate accommodation should be exactly similar or that it should have all the amenities, facilities and conveniences which he may be having in the premises from which he is sought to be evicted. The fact that the petitioner had to live near his other family members is not sufficient to refuse permission to file a suit for eviction. One of the reasons stated by the petitioner why he cannot be evicted was that he also conducts his professional work from the said premises. The Competent Authority has found that admittedly the premises were taken by the petitioner in the year 1965 much before he had started his practice and that was only for residence. The Competent Authority after considering all the evidence came to the conclusion that alternate accommodation was available with the petitioner and he was not likely to create slums. From the facts and circumstances as brought out on record, I find that this is not a case in which the finding of the Competent Authority can be set aside. ( 9 ) THE Competent Authority did not go into the question of financial status of the petitioner in view of his categorical finding that the petitioner was in possession of alternate accommodation and was not likely to create any slum. In the application for permission filed by the respondent before the Competent Authority it was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner who was an advocate had monthly income of Rs. 1,000. 00 or in any event sufficient income to find alternate accommodation if evicted. In the application for permission filed by the respondent before the Competent Authority it was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner who was an advocate had monthly income of Rs. 1,000. 00 or in any event sufficient income to find alternate accommodation if evicted. The respondent would not be in a position to know the exact income of the petitioner and once the respondent had alleged according to her knowledge and information, it was for the petitioner to adduce positive and satisfactory evidence regarding his income which is especially within his knowledge. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner does not have sufficient means to get alternate accommodation. In any event, once having come to a finding that the petitioner was in possession of alternate accommodation and that he was not likely to create slum it was not necessary for the Competent Authority to inquire about the financial status of the petitioner. The petitioner who is an advocate, was in possession of the tenanted premises consisting of one room, one kitchen-cum-store room, one latrine and a bath-room. He is a practising advocate by now with almost 15 years standing. The petitioner himself has produced the telephone bills and gas connection bills to show that he is in a position to maintain a telephone and his income must have necessarily increased from more than Rs. 100. 00 which he had stated was his income in the year 1972. Though there is a finding of the Competent Authority that the petitioner was in possession of alternate accommodation in the year 1971, I find that it is evident from the circumstances stated above that the petitioner who is an advocate of 15 years standing would definitely be in a position to find suitable alternate accommodation today. This is one such case where without proving that the petitioner did not have financial means he has been able to continue to be in possession of the tenanted premises for the last 15 years. The petition for eviction has yet to be filed and this is only a preliminary stage where permission is sought to be obtained to file an eviction petition. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in M/s Variety Emporium v. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina. The petition for eviction has yet to be filed and this is only a preliminary stage where permission is sought to be obtained to file an eviction petition. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in M/s Variety Emporium v. R. M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina. AIR 1985 SC 207 has reiterated that the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at the time when it is hearing the proceedings before it and mould the relief in the light of these events. Article 227 of the Constitution of India is intended only for the purpose of promoting the cause of justice. The power under Articles 226 an 227 of the Constitution of India is also discretionary. Thus taking the overall picture of the situation in my judgment the present case is not one where the orders of the Competent Authority should be set aside. ( 11 ) THE petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.