LexPUNNU RAM AND ORS. versus CHIRANJI LAL GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
PUNNU RAM AND ORS.
v.
CHIRANJI LAL GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.
MARCH 9, 1999
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 : Sections
· 19(4)(a) & (b). 19(3) and 20-A.
C
FactorSc-Laid down in S. 19(4}-Cumulative or altemative-Held, are
to be considered as altemative before granting pennission under S. 19(3 )-But
if the competent autho1ity is satisfied that eviction is in the interest of
improvement and clearance of slum areas as provided in S. 19(4)(b), it must
provide altemative accommodation within a reasonable time-Fwther, if
building is required for demolition or reconstntction or improvement, the
D tenant is fully protected under S. 20-A.
E
In this appeal, arising from the judgment of the High Court, the
following question arose before this Court :
Whether factors laid down in Section 19( 4) of the Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 are to be read as cumulatively or
alternatively?
Allowing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : 1. If the factor mentioned in Section 19(4)(a) of the Slum
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 is satisfied, that is to say,
if the alternative accommodation within the means of the tenant is avail-
able, then there is no reason to hold that the second factor is also required
to be satisfied before granting permission under Section 19(3). In such a
case, there ;:ould not be any justifiable reason for the competent authority
G to refuse to grant permission for filing the suit or proceedings for obtain-
ing any decree or order for eviction of a tenant or for granting permission
to execute decree or order, if obtained. Further Clause (b) provides that
before granting such permission, the competent authority should be satis-
fied whether the evidence is in interest of improvement and clearance of
H the slum areas and if it is in the interest of improvement and clearance of
940
!
PUNNU RAM AND ORS. v. C.L. GUPTA
941
the slum areas, then permission for eviction can be granted. In such cases A
also, a tenant would not be put to any hardship if he is evicted. The reason
is, if there is a scheme of clearance of the slum area framed by the
competent authority, then the policy of enactment suggests that slum
dwellers should not be evicted unless alternative accommodation to be
made could be obtained for them; that if the buildings or the entire area B
•
are to be ordered to be demolished, in that event, the dwellers would, of
course, have to vacate, but it was presumed that alternative accommoda-
tion would necessarily have to be provided before any such order is made.
It is true that for some time alternative accommodation may not be
provided to the knant but it is required to be provided within reasonable
time. Eviction process and improvement or reconstruction process is c
required to be carried out in an orderly fashion if the purpose of the Act ·
is to be fulfilled. Further, if the building is required by the owner for
~
demolition or reconstruction or improvement, then Section 20-A takes care
of the tenants. [945-E-H; 946-A-B]
•
2. Hence, even if the two factors mentioned in Section 19(4)(a) or (b) D
are to be taken into account as alternative factors by the competent
authority before granting permission to file a suit for eviction or to grant
permission for execution of a decree against a tenant residing in a slum
area, the tenant's rights are not in any manner prejudicially affected. He
is fully protected by the scheme of the Act. [947-B]
E
Jyoti Pershad v.Administrator for T7ze Union Tenitory of Delhi, {1962]
2 SCR 125, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3298 of
~
1990.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.5.82 of the Delhi High Court
in LP.A. No. 190 of 1970.
With
G
Civil Appeal Nos. 3299-3300 of 1990.
""
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.5.82 of the Delhi High Court
;.
in L.P.A. No. 191-192 of 1970.
Ranjit Kumar and Rajesh Patnaik for the Appellants.
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 1 S.C.R.
A
V.B. Saharya and KC. Dua for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHAH, J. In these appeals, only question involved is whether factors
laid down in Section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and
B Clearance) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are to be read
as cumulatively or alternatively. The full bench of the Delhi High Court
has interpreted the aforesaid sub-section ( 4) and haExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.