1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order of the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 by which respondent No. 2 herein has been granted permission to file a petition for eviction against the petitioners herein before the Rent Controller, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case Lire that respondent No. 2 (landlord) filed an application before the Competent Authority on June 4, 1971 for permission to evict the petitioners herein (tenants) from the premises comprising of a shop bearing No. 272 in Katra Pyare Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi of which petitioner No. 1 is a tenant under respondent No. 2. The application for permission set out the various grounds for eviction which were available to respondent No, 2, namely, nonpayment of arrears of rent, sub-letting, substantial damage caused to the property and closure of business. According to respondent No. 2 petitioner No.1 was a person of substantial means and his eviction would not create slums. This application was resisted by petitioner No. 1 on various grounds but it was admitted that petitioner No. 1 was residing at Jaipur where he was running a joint Hindu family business, which was running at a loss. With regard to the shop it was contended that he was carrying on the business of cloth commission agency in the said shop under the name and style of M/s. Doonger, Mal Kishan Lal. It was also averred that his business was running at a loss and he had a large family. In these circumstances if he is evicted he was bound to create slum.
3. The Competent Authority came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 had shifted from Delhi to Jaipur and was not carrying on business here. In any case, petitioner No. 1 that he was carrying led no cogent evidence on business at Delhi. In the circumstances it was not necessary to discuss the status of petitioner No. 1.
4. Mr. Arun Kumar appearing on be half of the, petitioners has urged that the order of the competent authority is liable to be set aside as he has failed to determine the Only point that he was required to determine in proceedings under Section 19 of the Slum Act. It was contended that shifting of petitioner No. 1 to Jaipur and his having a business there was no relevant consideration for granting permission to respondent No. 2 to file an eviction petition against petitioner No. 1. My attention was invited to a decision of this Court in C. R. Abrol v. Administrator under the Slum Areas C. W. 911 of 1969, decided on 4-5-70: (reported in (1970) 1 Delhi 768. It was held in this case that in the absence of any rules made under Section 19(4) of the Slum Act only two considerations have been specified to be taken into account by the Competent Authority; namely, (a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant would be available to him if he were evicted and (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of slum areas. The two considerations were held to be alternative and not cumulative. Mr. Arun Kumar urged that inasmuch as Section 19(4) of the Act has been held to be mandatory and exhaustive in the case of C. R. Abrol and the Competent Authority has in so many words refused to determine the question of the status of the tenant the order is vitiated. Further, it was not within the competence of the Competent Authority to base his finding on the respondent not being in possession of' the premises and having shifted his business to Jaipur. There is force in what Mr. Arun Kumar has contended.
5. Mr. J. B. Goel appearing on behalf of the landlord has rested his case on certain observations made in a single bench decision of this Court in Said-ud-Din v. Mahabir Singh, : AIR1971Delhi240 . That was a case in which the tenant bad challenged the order of permission granted to the landlord on the ground that the finding of fact was based on no evidence at all and, in any case, the finding was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the evidence before him. Deshpande, J. had observed that there is what may be called primary facts found by the Competent Authority or the Financial Commissioner and secondary facts, which would be inferences from primary facts. Mr. Goel states that the primary facts found by the Competent Authority in the present case were that petitioner No. I had shifted to and was living at Jaipur. He was carrying on business at Jaipur and had failed to disclose what his income was from the business at Delhi. The assessment order, Annexure 'I' -produced by petitioner No. 1 was only in respect of the business at Jaipur. The income from the Delhi business was not disclosed From this inferences were taken which may be called secondary facts: that inasmuch as petitioner No. 1 was no 'longer in Delhi and had failed to show that he was even carrying on business in the shop in question at Delhi the question of determination of his status became irrelevant.
6. It is, well settled that the High Court does not interfere under Article 226 or 227 unless there is such gross infirmity in the order that it must be struck down. The Dower of superintendence is to correct manifest errors of law and jurisdiction. This Dower is not to be exercised to further litigation or encourage litigants to take up false Pleas arid technical objections so as to avoid the consequences of law. Taking an overall practical approach. thereforee. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Competent Authority. A careful study of the order of the Competent Authority would show that he declined to determine the status of petitioner No. 1 because there was no need to do so as the Petitioner No. I was not established as being a Person in Possession of the shop in question or a Person carrying on business at Delhi. If that be so, his eviction from the shop in question cannot create a slum for there will be no occasion for him to take or make premises for carrying on the business, which he alleges he carries on in Delhi. The financial status of Petitioner No. 1 was within his Particular knowledge and his income from the Delhi business was for him to show. He failed to do so. He admittedly lives in Jaipur and Carries on a Joint Hindu family business there. In these circumstances it would have been idle formality to go into the question of the financial status of the petitioner in terms of the bench decision of this Court ink. R. Abrol's case. The Purpose of the Slum Act is to prevent creation of slums and further the clearance of slums. The determination of financial status alone does not help in furthering the objectives of the statute. If the Competent Authority comes to the conclusion on other relevant data that slums will not be created or that slums would be cleared by a proposed eviction, there would be no bar to the Competent Authority relying on such data.
7. I, accordingly, dismiss this petition. There will be no order as to costs.
8. Petition dismissed.