C. M. Nayar,j. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed agianst the judgment dated April 30,1987 passed by Shri S. M. Chopra, Competent Authority (Slum) I, Delhi by which permission was granted to the respondent under Section 19 (1) (a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) to enable him to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner in a Court of Law. Respondent No. 1 is stated to be owner/receiver of premises bearing No. 2382-83, Gali No. 12, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and he sought permission under Section 19 (l) (a) of the Act to enable him to institute eviction proceedings against the petitioner who is alleged to be a tenant in a portion of the said premises. The plea which was taken before the Competent Authority is that grounds of eviction are made out and the petitioner allegedly sub-let the premises to one Ms. Girja and he had the necessary means to enable him to hire an alternative premises because he is an educated person and his monthly income is not less than Rs. 3000. 00 from tuitions, assignments on various committees of political parties, Government and Research bodies. Respondent Shri Amrik Singh also filed an affidavit that he was the owner of the premises and he had been appointed as a Receiver in respect of I /3rd share of the income from the property by an order dated January 25,1985 passed by Jagdish Chandra, J. in I. A. No. 694/1984 in Suit No. 1891/1984 (Mr. Jagjit Singh v. Mr. Amrik Singh and Others ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner, however, denied that the respondent was the owner/receiver of the property and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also denied that there were any grounds made out for alleged sub-letting. The respondent as well as the petitioner filed their respective evidence and examined the witnesses before the Competent Authority. The same is referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the impugned judgment which read as follows : "4. By way of evidence of the petitioner, in addition to the affidavit of the petitioner Amrik Singh dated 27. 5. 1986 filed with the petition, the petitioner has also relied upon copies of the orders passed by the Court of Mr. By way of evidence of the petitioner, in addition to the affidavit of the petitioner Amrik Singh dated 27. 5. 1986 filed with the petition, the petitioner has also relied upon copies of the orders passed by the Court of Mr. M. A. Khan, Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the respondent against the order under Section 15 (1) (a) namely directing the respondent to pay rent was dismissed alongwith an acknowledgement by the respondent addressed to the father of the petitioner admitting that he accepts the present petitioner as his landlord. In addition, the petitioner has also given another affidavit dated 1. 10. 1986 and another supplementary affidavit dated 16. 12. 1986 alongwith a copy of the written statement filed by the present: respondent in previous eviction proceedings between the parties in which the respondent had described Miss Girja as being dependent upon the respondent. 5. In rebuttal, there is an affidavit of S. N. Kaul, the respondent dated 11. 8. 1986m respect of his means he has stated that he is being maintained by his sister who contributes Rs. 300. 00 p. m. for his maintenance and that he is otherwise qualified M. A. Balraj Bhola, Hans Raj and Bhagwan Singh are the three witnesses of the respondent besides his own sister Smt. Shanta who has deposed that her income is Rs. 2000. 00 per month and from her affidavit it appears that she is in occupation of a staff quarter and she has further deposed that she has no liability to discharge except her brother S. N. Kaul namely the respondent who is 60 years old but has no source of income. The respondent S. N. Kaul has given another supplementary affidavit dated 11. 2. 1987 because the petitioner was also competent to lead additional evidence as a result of which the petitioner had given his affidavit dated 18. 12. 1986 referred to above. The respondent has also placed on record a notice received from him from Shri V. M. Issar Advocate in which Smt. Durga Devi who happens to be the mother of the petitioner was the owner of the property and in this notice from the Advocate the respondent was informed that the sad Smt. Durga Devi had executed a Will in favour of her son Jagjit Singh. The respondent has also placed on record the Municipal Inspection extracts from MCD alongwith an affidavit of Miss Girja who has deposed that she was previously employed as LDC in Kudal Commission and since Kudal Commission has been wound up, she is without any source of income and she is being maintained by her father who lives in Srinagar and that the respondent happens to be her maternal uncle. She has also filed a copy of the order of Kudal Commission for terminating her services as the Commission has been wound up. " ( 3 ) THE Competent Authority accepted the- plea of the respondent that he was entitled to file a petition under Section 19 (l) (a) of the Act in his representative capacity in respect of the estate of his late mother Smt. Durga Devi and subject to decision of this Court in Suit No. 1891/1984. The learned Judge examined the evidence on record and came to a categorical finding that in case the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises by a Court of Law in appropriate judicial proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he was not likely to create slum as he had the resources to look after himself. The permission as a consequence was granted to respondent No. 1 to enable him to institute eviction proceedings agianst the petitioner in a Court of Law. The proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act have already commenced but no final order was directed to be passed in view of the order made by this Court on February 17, 1988. ( 4 ) THE Competent Authority has concluded on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record that the petitioner is a man of sufficient means and his eviction will not create another slum. The other grounds of eviction, such as, sub-letting are being agitated before the Court of Rent Controller under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and it will not be necessary for this Court to take any notice of the same as the pleas of the respondent and the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. The petitioner is an educated person though he is stated to be ailing at the moment. The petitioner is an educated person though he is stated to be ailing at the moment. Respondent No. 1 has stated that the petitioner, in any case, is not residing in the premises which are lying locked. This averment is refuted by the petitioner. This plea, however, will be open to challenge in an appropriate proceedings. ( 5 ) IN view of the above facts, the present petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. The proceedings before the Rent Controller shall revive and the pleas as raised by the petitioner as well as by the respondent shall be examined and decided by that Court. There will be no order as to costs.