Banarsi Das Ram Avtar vs Chandrakanta Agarwal and Another

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The order impugned is dated 21.03.2005 passed by the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ''said Act''). The permission sought by the landlord for initiating eviction proceedings against his tenant had been granted. The tenant is aggrieved by this finding. His contention is that the there was no evidence with the trial Court to come to a conclusion that the tenant has sufficient means to arrange for an alternate accommodation in a non-slum area; in the absence of such evidence, the impugned order granting permission to the landlord has committed an illegality; basic requirements of Section 19 of the said Act have not been fulfilled. Attention has been drawn to a document dated 08.10.1986 which is a lease deed and finds mention in the petition filed by the landlord. Contention is that this document is a registered lease deed which even otherwise grants permission to the tenant to sublet the premises and as such no ground u/s 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) would even otherwise be available to the landlord. The submission that this registered lease deed is a registered document does not find mention in the reply filed by the tenant to the application u/s 19 of the said Act; on a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count, he has no answer; this being a registered document, why this was not mentioned in this reply has not been explained. That apart the requirements of Section 19 of the said Act clearly stands fulfilled. Specific averment of the landlord in this petition was that the tenant is an affluent man and he is in a position to afford accommodation in a non-slum area; his telephone numbers and fax numbers at his factory address had also been disclosed as also his e-mail address. There is no specific denial to this submission; in the corresponding para, the tenant has admitted that he is an income tax payee; details of his income has also not been disclosed; Trial Court had rightly drawn an adverse inference in not disclosing these facts which were within the knowledge of the tenant alone. That apart, his second submission that the ground u/s 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA would not be available to him is a defence which is sought to be set up as whether the lease deed dated 08.10.1986 had vested any right to the tenant to sublet the premises or not is an open question; in fact an appeal had been filed against this order before the Financial Commissioner who had dismissed it as not being maintainable. Powers of superintendence have to be adverted to only if there is a patent illegality or a perversity which has accrued to the applying party. This is not one such case. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.