Manmohan Sarin, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19. 4. 75, passed by the Controller (Slums) granting permission to the respondent under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act. The petitioners had also moved an application for review of the impugned order which was also dismissed by the order dated 16. 10. 1975 by the Competent Authority (Slums ). ( 2 ) THE petitioners are tenants under the respondent-landlord in respect of two Rooms, Store, Bath Room, Verandah and a Bath Room, Verandah and a Court Yard on the ground floor of House No. III/1637 (old) and III/3318 (new), Dorwali Gali, Morigate, Delhi on a monthly rental of Rs. 10. 00. ( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the main ground of challenge to the impugned orders, the facts in brief may be noticed: (I) The respondent had filed this petition claiming that the petitioner No. 1 Shri Jawala Dass was the owner of a Truck No. DLL-4261 and also owned agricultural land measuring about 8-1/2 Standard Acres situated at Marodi, Rangaram, Rohtak. It was contended that the petitioner No. 1 s was a person of status. Petitioner No. 2 was also earning not less than Rs. 500. 00 per month, while his liabilities were meagre. The petitioner No. 1 is said to be having three sons who are all independent and earning. Petitioner s daughter Ms. Raj Kumari was also said to be employed and earning about Rs. 350. 00 per month. It was also contended that the petitioner No. 1 s. immediate income from agricultural land was minimum of Rs. 3000. 00 p. a. Besides the petitioner No. 1 had sold some part of the land for Rs. 50,000. 00 He had also sold two plots for Rs. 30,000. 00 or so and hence was possessed of sufficient means. It was contended that he was earning about Rs. 1,500. 00 per month from the Truck No. DLL-4261, owned by him. This apart he had the contributions from his three sons. (II) The petitioner No. 1 s case before the Slum Authorities was that he has become old and was incapable of working, his two elder sons Ramesh Chandra and Jagmohan were living separately and were not contributing anything to meet his expenses or towards his income. This apart he had the contributions from his three sons. (II) The petitioner No. 1 s case before the Slum Authorities was that he has become old and was incapable of working, his two elder sons Ramesh Chandra and Jagmohan were living separately and were not contributing anything to meet his expenses or towards his income. His third son Prem Sagar was a clerk, while his daughter was contributing only a sum of Rs. 250. 00. The agricultural land was owned by two others and his income was not more than Rs. 100. 00 per month from the said lands. He also denied the other allegations made by respondent. (III) The petitioner No. 2 Tej Bhan is stated to be a fruit vendor, who the respondent claimed was earning about Rs. 10. 00 per day. The petitioner No. 2, Jawala Dass contended that he was only earning Rs. 5. 00 per day i. e Rs. 150. 00 a month. His two daughters were married and he was not receiving anything from them. The salary of the daughter of petitioner No. 1 was Rs. 350. 00 and salary of third son of petitioner was Rs. 220. 00 and the income of petitioner No. 2 was Rs. 150. 00 per month. The petitioner No. 1 s income of Rs. 250/ - per month from agricultural land made a total of Rs. 970. 00 per month. (IV) Applying the then prevailing guidelines the Competent Authority held that the petitioners would have to part with a sum of Rs. 98. 35 per month for a premises of 281 sq. ft. , if they were to acquire alternate premises in the event of their eviction. While taking 12% of their income of Rs. 970. 00 , a sum of Rs. 116. 00 was available on this account. ( 4 ) THE petitioners contention in this petition is that it had been proved before Competent Authority that the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 got married on 3rd October, 1985 and was residing with her husband. In this view of the matter, it was not open for the Competent Authority to include the salary of the daughter of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 350. 00 per month while computing the income of the petitioners. There is considerable merit in this submission of Mr. In this view of the matter, it was not open for the Competent Authority to include the salary of the daughter of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 350. 00 per month while computing the income of the petitioners. There is considerable merit in this submission of Mr. Jaitley since there is material available on the record to establish the factum of marriage. ( 5 ) IN my view, even if the income of the petitioner No. 1 s daughter was to be excluded on account of her marriage, the same should not result in any difference in the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Competent Authority. The effect of exclusion of the daughter s income would be that only a sum of Rs. 86. 40 would be available for alternative accommodation as against the required amount of Rs. 98. 30 p. m. , based on the criteria then prevailing. This difference was only marginal, i. e. , Rs. 12. 00. In my view, the Competent Authority has computed the income of petitioner No. 1 on a very conservative basis especially when the Competent Authority held that the petitioners had tried to conceal their income. Petitioner No. 1 s daughter had not declared her total income. The Competent Authority appears to have ignored the fact that the petitioner, who was admittedly getting an income from agricultural land at Rohtak was himself not engaged in farming and was receiving the aforesaid amount as his share. As per the respondent s allegation, the petitioner owned a truck No DLL-4261 and was earning a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 per month from the operation of the said truck. Even if Rs. 1,500. 00 was to be taken as an exaggerated figure, it cannot be ignored that the petitioner No. 1 would have been receiving some amount on account of vocation carried on by him. Apart from this the petitioner, who was in business would have been earning some amount as it could not be expected that he would not be working at all. Besides this, the Competent Authority did not take into account some contributions which would have been made by the other sons in the natural course of events. Apart from this the petitioner, who was in business would have been earning some amount as it could not be expected that he would not be working at all. Besides this, the Competent Authority did not take into account some contributions which would have been made by the other sons in the natural course of events. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING these facts and the marginal difference in the income, I do not think that this is a fit case, which calls for interference in the exercise of discretion under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.