PAL SINGH v. H. D. BIRDI, COMPETENT AUTHORITY — 1986 DIGILAW 226 (DEL)

S. S. Chadha ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitutio of India is directed against the order dated March 31, 1975 passed by Shri H. D. Birdi. Competent Authority (Slum) allowing an application under Section 19 (l) (a) of the Slum Aears (Improvement and Clearance) Act filed by Shri Sunder Singh for seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. Sh. Sunder Singh moved an application under Section 19 of the said Act for permission to institute proceeding for obtaining an order for eviction of the petitioner berein from the premises consisting of three rooms with a court-yard in house No. 22/66, Gali Inder Chamar. Teliwara, Delhi. The tenant filed a written statement raising several objections to the maintainability of the petition. The landlord then filed application. The parties were called upon to file their affidavits and counter affidavits. The Competent Authority appraised the evidence produced by the parties in the form of affidavits, counter affidavits and documentary evidence. The Competent authority concluded that the petitioner herein has not come out with true facts, that he has tried to conceal material information, that he has not come out with clean hands and that the allegations of the landlord were accepted as correct. It was held that the petitioner herein is a person of status and means to acquire alternative accommodation in cage of his eviction from the premises in diipute. The permission sought under section 19 (l) (a) of the said Act was granted by the impugned order dated March 31, 1975. ( 3 ) SHRI Sunder Singh died on March 6. 1981 and the property in dispute devolved upon his legal heirs. No application was filed for bringing on record the legal representativeg of the deceased respondent No. 2. The legal heirs then moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on or about April 1. 1986 for dismissal of the main petition or in the alternative it was prayed that the hearing of the main petition be expedited. The legal heirs then moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on or about April 1. 1986 for dismissal of the main petition or in the alternative it was prayed that the hearing of the main petition be expedited. The hearing of the main petition was expedited In the meanwhile the tenant moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying inter alia, that though the legal representatives are not required to be brought on the record after the death of late Shri Sunder Singh, the application is being made by way of abundant precaution for impleading the legal representatives. ( 4 ) MR. Devinder Kapar, the learned counsel for the legal representatives has raised an objection that the Competent Authority (Slum) is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as amended by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. There is no merit in this preliminary objection. The order of the Competent Authority Slum) was passed on March 31, 1975. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed on August 13, 1975. Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act. 1976 came into force on lit February, 1977. There is consensus of judicial opinion that where a statute is passed pending an action strong and distinct words are necessary to alter the vested rights of either litigant an they stood at the commencement of the actionpending petition under the original Artcle 227 would therefore, not be affected by the amended Article inasmuch as, there are no words at all, much less strong and distinct words, in the amended Article 227 which suggest either expressly or by, necessary implication that any alteration was intended in the right of the petitioners to continue and complete their proceedings with the Article as it stood at the commencement of the Action (Scc : Shripatrao Dajiiaheb Ghatge and another v. The State of Moharashtra and another, AIR 1977 Bombay 384 (FB) and Chhaganlal Devchand etc. v. Smt. Navalkvnwar Tafakchand and another etc. AIR 1977 Gujarat 180 ). ( 5 ) THE second objection raised is the inordinate delay and laches in bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. There is merit in this submission. As already mentioned respondent No. 2 died on March 6, 1981. v. Smt. Navalkvnwar Tafakchand and another etc. AIR 1977 Gujarat 180 ). ( 5 ) THE second objection raised is the inordinate delay and laches in bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. There is merit in this submission. As already mentioned respondent No. 2 died on March 6, 1981. In pursuance of the permission granted by the Competent Authority (Slum) respondent No. 2 obtained an order of eviction against the petitioner. The appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal was dismissed. The second appeal being S. A. O?26/80 was pending in this Court. The petitioner moved an application on May 30. 1981 under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing on record the legal representative in the second appeal. That application was allowed by the Court on October 13,1982. The petitioner was fully aware of the death of respondent No. 2. He did not even then take any steps within a reasonable time for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased in these proceedings. The application was moved on April 23, 1986. No explanation is furnished as to why the delay was caused in making the application. The only reason advanced is that the legal representatives of the deceased could not be in any way necessary part to the decision of the main petition as late Shri Sunder Singh was only a proper party. The contention is that what is challenged in these proceedings is the order of the Competent Authority (Slum) which is the only necessary party. ( 6 ) THE order of the Competent Authority (Slum) granted permission under Section 19 (1 (a) of the said Act to late Shri Sunder Singh to institut proceedings for obtaining an order of eviction of the petitioner from the demised premise. The order was obtained from the Competent Authority (Slum) on an application presented as required by the said Act. The result of the quashing of the order dated March 31, 1975 would have prejudiciallv affected late Shri Sunder Singh. He was therefore anecessary party and in his absence no relief can be granted by this Court. This plea has been taken by the petitioner only to cover the inordinate delay and laches in making the application. The result of the quashing of the order dated March 31, 1975 would have prejudiciallv affected late Shri Sunder Singh. He was therefore anecessary party and in his absence no relief can be granted by this Court. This plea has been taken by the petitioner only to cover the inordinate delay and laches in making the application. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Order 22 and the provisions of the Limitation Act not be applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, yet the principle do apply. It was held in bhagwan Singh and others v. Additional Director of Consolidation. Punjab. Fcrozepurand another, AIR 1968 Punjab and Haryana 360 that the Court will apply the principles as distinguished from the technical provisions of Order 22 Rules 3 and 4, relating to substitution in appropriate cases in the exercise of its discretion on the ground of justice, equity and good conscience. However, where there has been inordinte delays and laches without proper eiplana ions for the substitution, the Court will have to refuse to exercise its discretion. The case before me is also a fit case in which I am inclined to refuse to exerdse my discretion in favour of the petitioner. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, on merits the petitioner has also no case. For granting or refusing permission under Section 19 of the said Act the Competent Authority (Slum) has to take into considerition the various factors mentioned in Section 19 (4) of the said Act. The Competent Authority (Slum) has to give a finding whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he evicted. I was taken through the material before the Comocient Authority (Slum) and I have appreciated it only with a view to find out whether it calls for interferenc under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I would interfere only when the finding is either based on no material or which is such is no reasonable person acting reasonable would have come to that conclusion, in other words, if the finding is perverse. ( 8 ) THE landlord filed an affidavit alleging that the tenant js very well off financially and is in affluent circumitances and can easily arrange for alternative accomodation. ( 8 ) THE landlord filed an affidavit alleging that the tenant js very well off financially and is in affluent circumitances and can easily arrange for alternative accomodation. It was pointed out that he owns about 11 bighas of agricultural land at Haibatpur near Najafgarb, Delhi which yields an income act less than Rs. 500. 00 per month. It is also stated that the tenant sold bis land measuring 24 bighas 14 biswas situated in village Hibatpur nor Najafarh, New Delhi for Rs. 33,000. 00 on September 17. 1970 by means of sale and this sum of Rs. 33. 000. 00 in his possession. Besides monthly income from the working of a kharad machine is not less than Rs. i200. 00 per month and the income of his son is given as Rs. 100. 00 per month. In the counter affidavit there is an evdsive denial as to the income from the agricultural land in the name of the tenant. It is also sworn that the tenant was never in possassion of Rs 33. 000. 00 at any time and was not then in possession of any amount. The tenant admitted his income to the extent of Rs. 175. 00 per month as salary besides the income of Rs. 100. 00 or so of his son. ( 9 ) THE Competent Authority (Slum) considered the copy of the sale deed relating to the sale of the land measuring 24 bighas 14 biswas situated in village Haibatpur near Najafgarh. New Delhi. As per sale deed, the tenant received a sum of Rs. l7,151. 00 at the time of registration before the Sub-registrar and admitted the receipt of Rs 15. 849. 00 previously. The Competent Authority also relied upon the copy of the written statement filed by the tenant in the suit filed by Shri Darshan Singh. It records the admission that trie tenant sold his share of the land and received the amount of the proceeds as alleged by the landlord After noticing this material the Competent Authority (Slum) held that the story of the tenant that he did not receive the amount of Rs. 33,000. 00 does not appear to be convincing and reliable in the absence of any other cogent peace of evidence on record. 33,000. 00 does not appear to be convincing and reliable in the absence of any other cogent peace of evidence on record. The Competent Authority (Slum) believed the allegations of the landlord that the tenant is having income by way of interest earned on the said amount of Rs. 33. 000. 00. ( 10 ) THE Competent Authority (Slum) then noticed the admitted case that the tenant owned II bighas of agricultural land at village Haibatpur near Najafgarh, New Delhi, that the land is chai and most productive and the tenant has installed a tubewell to irrigate the land. A copy of the khasra girdawari dated August 24. 1972 was filed. The Competent Authority then noticed that the tenant has not denied that the land is not productive or that he has not installed a tubewell for irrigation of the same. On that basis the inference is drawn that the tenant is having monthly income of Rs. 500. 00 from the agricultural land Besides this there is admitted income of Rs. 275. 00 by the tenant. On this basis the finding of the Competent Authority (Slum) that the tenant is a person of status and means to acquire alternative accommodation in case his eviction from the demised premises is supported by cogent material and evidence. ( 11 ) FOR the abovereasons CM. (M) 236/75 is dismissed with no order as to costs.