Orissa Industries Ltd. vs Hardayal and Sons (HUF) and Another

S.N. Kapoor, J.—I have heard learned counsel for both the parties grievance of the petitioner is that his application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, despite the bar u/s 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was rejected by the learned trial court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be absolutely justified In her submissions about legal proposition in terms of Section 19 that the suit cannot be instituted for eviction of a tenant unless permission is obtained u/s 19 in case the premises are located in a slum area.

However, in this case learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that supposing the premises are located in slum area, the defendant has ceased to be tenant and as such, bar u/s 19 is not applicable to Institute a suit for eviction and an unauthorised occupant who has ceased to be tenant by serving notice of termination of his tenancy. He relies upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Punnu Ram v. Chiraji Lal Gupta, A.I.R 1952 Delhi 431.

The plaint undisputedly discloses that tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated by serving notice. Whether it has been terminated or not, is a question of fact and law and without recording evidence, that question cannot be decided. At this stage only the facts mentioned in the plaint can be seen and not the case of the defendant. If the matter is seen in the light of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Punnu Ram v. Chiraji Lal Gupta (supra), I do not think that it would be proper to interfere with this order.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.