JUDGMENT - S.M. DAUD, J.:---These six petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution question the correctness of an order passed under section 22, affirmed in appear under section 23, both of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971- hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. 2. Petitioner is the owner of seven structures comprising several rooms known as Amangool Chawl situated at Danda-Khar at Bandra, Bombay. Respondent No. 4 to 1 all the petitions are in occupation of different rooms of the chawls as tenants. The said respondents had stopped paying rent to the petitioner since 1975. The Chawl was declared as slum on 30th September, 1978 under section 4 of the Act. On 26th July, 1981, the petitioner addressed notices of demand to the 4th respondent figuring in these petitions as also seven others similarly situated. They were called upon to pay the rent outstanding from them. The notices not having evoked any positive response, the petitioner moved the Competent Authority i.e. the 3rd respondent for a permission under section 22 of the Act. This section to the extent relevant is as follows :- "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the Competent Authority. (a) institute, after the commencement of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, any suit or proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction of any occupier from any building or land in a slum area .... (3) On receipt of such application, the Competent Authority, after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit, shall, by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission. (4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under clause (a) ..... (4) In granting or refusing to grant the permission under clause (a) ..... of sub-section (1), the Competent Authority shall take into account the following factors; namely :- (a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the occupier would be available to him, if he were evicted ; (4A) (b) if, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of any application for permission under clause (c) of sub-section (1), the Competent Authority does not refuse to grant the permission, it shall be deemed to have been granted at the expiration of such period. (5) Where the Competent Authority refused to grant the permission under any of the clauses of sub-section(1), it shal record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal, and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant." After receipt of the applications from the petitioner, the Competent Authority issued notices to the concerned tenants who included respondent 4 to the six petitions before me. Statements of certain persons were recorded and the Competent Authority then passed an order. The relevant portion thereform reading as follows :- "In conclusion it is proved that the tenants are in arrears and are not provided with amenities. The repairs as well as amenities had to be got obtained by them out of their funds. The alternative accommodation is not available to the tenants within their means in case they are evicted. It is natural that the landlady and structure owner must share some of the expenditure on maintenance, repairs and amenities. The landlady/applicant has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against declaration of a slum area but the same has been dismissed and area is standing in slum under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 ........... I therefore, do not grant permission to landlady/applicant for approaching courts for eviction and rent arrears recovery as landlady has failed to share expenditure on repairs and amenities and also for the conditions stated under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971 are not satisfied." The petitioner carried the matter in appeal under section 23 of the Act. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal comprising a President and a Member. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal comprising a President and a Member. This Tribunal held that the reasons given by the tenants for not paying the rent were not justified and that the Competent Authority had erred in refusing permission for filing of suits for recovery of rental arrears. However, the Competent Authority was right in holding that the permission to sue for eviction should not be granted as the tenants would not, having regard to their means, be able to find alternative accommodation, if evicted from the tenements in their occupation. Consequently, the appeals were allowed in part, in that the petitioner could sue the tenants for recovery of rental arrears, but not for eviction. 3. Petitioner takes exception to the rejection of her request for permission to sue for ejectment in these petitions. The petitions have to be allowed and my reasons for so doing are stated below :- 4. Section 22(1)(a) requires the previous permission of the Competent Authority only for the institution of a suit aimed at obtaining a decree or order for eviction of an occupier from any building or land in a slum area. This section does not enjoin the intending landlord to obtain prior permission for a suit to obtain a decree or order for recovery of rental arrears. The Competent Authority was therefore in error in refusing this limited right also to the petitioner. But the said Authority was atleast consistent in denying permission for suits to recover rental arrears in view of its holding that the petitioner had wrongly refrained from contributing to the up-keep of the property or contributing her share towards the repairs allegedly carried out by the tenants. The Tribunal reversed the error of refusal vis-a-vis suits for recovery of unpaid rent. It was right in holding that the tenant claim to get an adjustment of the expenditure allegedly incurred by them on the repairs and availment of amenities was not tenable in law. Where the Tribunal erred was in taking into consideration the means of the defaulting tenants as a reason for granting them continuance in the occupation of their tenements. It was right in holding that the tenant claim to get an adjustment of the expenditure allegedly incurred by them on the repairs and availment of amenities was not tenable in law. Where the Tribunal erred was in taking into consideration the means of the defaulting tenants as a reason for granting them continuance in the occupation of their tenements. The incongruity in the order of the Tribunal is that the tenants who are admittedly in arrears of rent for more than six months and whose reasons for non-payment of the rent are not good in law, are yet conferred a protection to continue in occupation. This protection they are clothed with is despite the fact of their having rendered themselves liable for ejectment under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. That cannot be even the intendment of section 22(4)(a) of the Act. An effort should be made to read the said provision reasonably and in reconciliation with the existing law governing the relationship between a landlord and tenant. In the result, the petitions succeed. Petitioner is accorded the permission to institute suits for obtaining a decrees or orders for the eviction of the occupants figuring in these petitions on the ground of failure to pay rent, if available as a ground for eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Tribunal to the contrary are set aside to the above extent. Rule in these terms made absolute, with parties being left to bear their own costs. Rule made absolute. -----