Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. An application was presented to the Competent Authority under the slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 on 5-5-1970. The same was dismissed on 12-3-1971 on the ground that the respondents could not get alternative accommodation. An appeal which was preferred to the Financial Commissioner by the landlady was also dismissed on 17-5-1971.

3. Though a number of points were taken in the petition the main argument on behalf of the petitioner was that the application to the Competent Authority for permission to evict the respondents was itself unnecessary and was misconceived. This stand has been explained in the following manner: the respondents who were imp leaded as L. Rs., of Chetan Dass in the appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal were themselves not tenants of the property since Chetan Dass himself must, by reason of the order of eviction that was ultimately passed with his L.R., on record, be deemed to have been a statutory tenant having no estate to assign or transfer in respect of such tenancy and which also did not devolve on any one on his death. For this reason it is contended that the persons who were brought on record as L.Rs., to Chetan Dass were not tenants of the property and the question whether alternative accommodation within their means would be available to them if they were evicted did not fall for consideration before the Competent Authority. It is further contended that if this is the true legal position the mere fact that an application was made under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act for permission to evict the L.Rs., of Chetan Dass who were imp leaded in the appeal could not confer jurisdiction on the Competent Authority if there was none and that the petitioner would not be precluded from showing such want of jurisdiction on the part of the Competent Authority despite the petitioner having invoked his jurisdiction.

4. It was held by Shah, J.,(as his Lordship then was) in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd., v. Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi, that a statutory tenant of a property had no interest in the property occupied by him except that he enjoyed the protection against eviction by the said statute. It was further held that even a sub-lessee from a statutory tenant acquired no right of a tenant in the premises occupied by him.

5. In South Asia Industries Private Ltd., v. S.Sarup Singh, the Supreme Court upheld the order for eviction passed against the assignee from a company (lessee) despite the company having gone into liquidation after the application for eviction was field. Sarkar, J.(Mudholkar, J. dissenting) speaking for himself as well as Bachawat, J., held that if the tenant became extinct without leaving any successor on whom the tenancy devolves an order could be made against a person who took an assignment of the lease from the tenant before it became extinct. Observing that if the assignee or a sub-tenant was entitled to oppose an order for eviction that would be a reason by itself for passing an order of eviction against such a person, the majority repelled the contention that since an assignee was not a tenant no order for eviction could be passed against him under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Bachwat, J., pointed out that since the tenant company had been dissolved and ceased to exist no one could be substituted in its place and observed that the proceedings could continue against the assignee alone who was already made a party along with the tenant to the proceedings for possession.