Mohinder Malhotra vs Ramesh Maheshwari

Indermeet Kaur, J.—Order impugned is dated 14.3.2012; this is an order passed by the Sidhartha Sharma, Competent Authority under the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"). Record shows that Ramesh Maheshwari had filed an eviction petition u/s 19 of the said Act seeking permission of the Competent Authority to initiate eviction proceedings against the respondent Mohinder Malhotra (petitioner before this Court) for his eviction qua the premises comprising of one shop forming part of property bearing No.4659, Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi. Averment was that the property was located in a slum area; parties share relationship of landlord and tenant; rate of rent is Rs.300/-; permission be accorded to the petitioner to initiate eviction proceedings against his tenant. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner was represented before the Competent Authority. His contention was that Baldev Raj Malhotra was the original tenant; after his death he has been termed as an "unauthorized occupant" and as such there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. This is also the vehement argument which has been urged before this Court. The tenant had made a bald submission that he is not financially sound but no such document had been brought on record to show that his income is meager and he is not in a position to afford an alternate accommodation elsewhere. Contention of the tenant was that he is earning Rs.8000/- per month and per contra submission of the landlord was that the tenant was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per month. No document has been placed on record by the tenant to substantiate this submission either. Court had returned an adverse inference for not producing the best evidence qua this position as these the facts could only be known to the tenant himself. It was in this background the application of the petitioner u/s 19 of the said Act had been allowed.

The scope of the said Act has also been perused. Right of appeal u/s 20 of the said Act is available only to the landlord who is the person aggrieved by an order passed u/s 19 whereby the Competent Authority has refused permission u/s 19(1) of the said Act. Appeal lies to the Administrator. The remedy of the tenant is by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is the powers of superintendence of this Court.

The vehement arguments urged before this Court is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; the other co-owners have not been joined. A perusal of the reply filed by the petitioner before the Competent Authority show that no such objection had been made before the Competent Authority. In para 6 contention was that the petition u/s 19 of the said Act is not maintainable because of non-joinder of necessary parties as the other legal heairs of the original tenant Baldev Raj Malhotra have not been joined. The non-joinder of the other legal representatives does not merit any objection as admittedly the original tenant in this case was Baldev Raj Malhotra and his legal heir Mahender Malhotra was representing him in his capacity as a legal heir; all the tenants inherited the property from the original tenant as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. This objection has no merit. No objection has been raised by the petitioner about the non-joinder of the other co-owners as has been urged today before this Court. On a specific query learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not pressing this objection. The next objection raised by the petitioner is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant; this argument appears prima facie to be false as admittedly the father of the petitioner namely Baldev Raj Malhotra was the tenant and the present petitioner namely Mahender Malhotra has stepped into the shoes of his father; he is having no other better status than his father Baldev Raj Malhotra as such this submission is also without any merit. No other argument has been pressed. It has been pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that all other arguments which the petitioner seeks to raise before this Court can well be taken up by him at the time when appropriate proceedings are taken by the landlord Ramesh Maheshwari. This also appears to the intent of the legislature as can be gauged from the fact that Section 20 of the said Act provides for a remedy of appeal only to the landlord and not to a tenant. Reliance by the counsel for the petitioner upon 26(1984) DLT 452 Mahinder Kumar Khandelwal Vs. Padam Chand is misplaced. This petition is an abuse of the process of the court. Dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.