Skip to content


Ram Autar Etc. Vs. Laxmi Narayan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 189 of 1971
Judge
Reported in1973RLR39
ActsConstitution of India - Article 227; Slum Areas (Clearance & Improvement) Act, 1959 - Sections 12
AppellantRam Autar Etc.
RespondentLaxmi Narayan
Advocates: K.G. Sapra and; S.L. Chhibbar, Advs
Excerpt:
- - the appellate authority, after the litigation had passed through various stages, in the ultimate order was dealing precisely with the order dated the 26th february, 1970 by which the competent authority had granted the afore-mentioned permission to the respondent before me......19 of the slum areas (improvement and clearance) act 1956 (hereafter called the act) after the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order directing their eviction had been dismissed by the rent control tribunal. the application was filed before the competent authority acting under that act. it was stated in the application that the respondent was seeking the permission under section 19(1)(b) of the said act for executing the order of eviction passed on the 26th november, 1966 against which an appeal taken to the rent conttol tribunal had been dismissed on the 19th march, 1968. (4) the present petitioners filed a reply to the afore-mentioned application and raised the preliminary objection that since they had filed an appeal against the order of the rent control tribunal, which.....
Judgment:

P.S. Safeer, J.

(1) This petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by three brothers. Ram Avtar, Roshan Lal and Daulat Ram, who were the repondents to an eviction petition filed by the respondent landlord on the 12th March, 1964. The respondent had sought the eviction of the present petitioners on the ground of bona-fide necessity. The original application was amended on the 28th January, 1966 and Ram Autar and Roshan Lal, present petitioners, were also arrayed as respondents. The Additional Rent Controller after recording evidence and hearing the parties, passed an eviction order in favor of the present respondent against the petitioners before me on the 25th November, 1966.

(2) An appeal was filed by the petitioners under section 38 of Act 59 of 1958 which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the order of eviction passed against them was affirmed.

(3) An application was filed by the respondent Laxmi Narain on the 14th May, 1968 under section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 (hereafter called the Act) after the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order directing their eviction had been dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The application was filed before the Competent Authority acting under that Act. It was stated in the application that the respondent was seeking the permission under section 19(1)(b) of the said Act for executing the order of eviction passed on the 26th November, 1966 against which an appeal taken to the Rent Conttol Tribunal had been dismissed on the 19th March, 1968.

(4) The present petitioners filed a reply to the afore-mentioned application and raised the preliminary objection that since they had filed an appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, which had been admitted and the applicant (the present respondent) had been served' there was no final adjudication of the rights between the parties and the decree passed is favor of the applicant was not final and as such no permission could bs given under section 19(1)(b) of the Act. The Competent Authority ignoring the plea by its order dated the 26th February, 19/0 granted the permission to the present respondent to execute the order of eviction. At that time, the appeal preferred by the present petitioners under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was pending in this Court. The present petitioners had invoked a remedy provided by Act 59 of 1958 and only an order disposing of the appeal could have achieved finality within the scope of section 43 of that Act.

(5) Through this petition a challenge is thrown to the order passed by respondent No. 2 who disposed of the appeal filed under section 20 of the Act. The appellate authority, after the litigation had passed through various stages, in the ultimate order was dealing precisely with the order dated the 26th February, 1970 by which the Competent Authority had granted the afore-mentioned permission to the respondent before me. That permission was granted on a date on which the appeal under section 39 of Act 59 of 1958 was pending and which appeal was disposed of by this Court only on the 17th July,1970.

(6) Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, is :-

'S.19 (1) (b). Where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of a tenant from any building or land in such area, execute such decree or order.'

THECompetent Authority is given the jurisdiction to grant permission for execution of a decree or order of eviction which the petitioner postulates should be final and thereforee executable and with which the Controller may be competent to deal within the scope of Section 42 of Act 59 of 1958. The order dated the 25th November, 1966 having become subjudice because of the pendency of the appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Competent Authority could have granted the permission only on an amendment of application preferred before it, which amendment could have been allowed after the appeal filed in the High Court was disposed of on the 17th July, 1970. Finding that the Competent Authority had acted without jurisdiction on, the 26th February, 1970 when the appeal was still pending in this Court, exercising my jurisdiction provided by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby allow respondent No. 1 to amend the application which he had filed under section 19 of the Act so as to mention therein that on the 17th July, 1970 this Court in terms of its judgment by which S.A.O. 213/1958 was disposed of affirmed the order of eviction passed against three petitioners. The parties which are before me are directed to appear before the Competent Authority, which authority will on remand, after allowing the amendment in the application and the filing of the reply thereto and the production of such evidence which may be necessary, dispose of the application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //