Holding

The factors in Section 19(4) are to be considered alternatively; satisfying either factor suffices for the competent authority to grant permission for eviction proceedings.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered appeals arising from a Delhi High Court judgment that interpreted Section 19(4) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The central question was whether the two factors listed in that subsection – (a) availability of alternative accommodation for the tenant and (b) whether eviction serves the interest of slum improvement and clearance – must be satisfied cumulatively or can be satisfied alternatively before a competent authority grants permission for eviction proceedings. The Court held that the factors are alternative; satisfying either factor is sufficient for the authority to grant permission, provided the tenant’s rights are protected. It emphasized that when eviction is for demolition or reconstruction, Section 20A safeguards the tenant’s right to return to the improved premises. The Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the factors are alternative and allowed the appeals, disposing of the matters.

Issues considered

Whether the factors stipulated in Section 19(4)(a) and (b) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 are to be read cumulatively or alternatively for the purpose of granting permission for eviction.

Subjects

Slum Areas Actevictionalternative accommodationSection 19Section 20Acumulative vs alternativetenant protectionimprovement and clearance

Judgment

A PUNNU RAM AND ORS.
v.
CHIRANJI LAL GUPTA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

MARCH 9, 1999

B [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.

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
E
(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
are to be ordered to be demolished, in that event, the dwellers would, of
B
•
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 has arrived at tho:: con-
clusion that the conditions mentioned in clauses (a) & (b) of Section 19(4)
of Act were conditions in the alternative and did not have to be read
C cumulatively. The Court also, inter alia, held as under :

"That the principle 'objective of the Act being clearance of slums and
Prevention and creation of slums, if in a given case the demolition or
re-erection or re construction of a building or a set of buildings was
necessary in the interest of slum clearance or improvement, the poverty of
D the tenant even if established would not debar the competent authority
from granting permission.

The competent authority in considering the application for grant of
permission moved by a landlord has to look at the matter from the _point
of view of the tenant and not from the point of view of the landlord, ever
E keeping in mind the objectives sought to be achieved by the Act."

The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court.

For appreciating the contentions raised by the appellant, it

F
would be necessary to refer to Section 19 of the Act which is as ..
under :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, no person shall, except with the previous
permission in writing of the competent authority, -
G (a) institute, after the commencement of the Slum Areas (Im-
provement and Clearance) Amendment Act, 1964 any suit or
proceeding for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction
of a tenant from any building or land in a slum area; or

H (b) where any decree or order is obtained in any suit or proceed-
PUNNU RAM AND ORS. v. C.L. GUPTA [SHAH, J.] 943

ing instituted before such commencement for the eviction of A
a tenant from any building or land in such area, execute such
decree or order.

2. Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in
sub-section (1) shall make an application in writing to the com-
petent authority in such form and containing such particulars as B
may be prescribed.

3. On receipt of such application, the competent authority, after
giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after
making such summary inquiry into the circumstances of the case C
as it thinks fit, shall by order in writing, either grant or refuse to
grant such permission.

4. In granting or refusing to grant the permission under sub- section
(3), the competent authority shall take into account the following
factors, namely : D
(a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the
tenant would be available to him if he were evicted.

(b) Whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and
clearance of the slum areas; E
(c) Such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed.

5. Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission,
it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refusal and
furnish a copy thereof to the applicant." F

At this stage, we would state that sub-section ( 4) of Section 19 was
substituted by Act 43 of 1964 alongwith other amendments in the Act. Prior
to that, sub-section (4) read as under : '
G
"Where the competent authority refuses to grant the permission
it shall record a brief statement of the reasons for such refus111 and
furnish a copy theieof to the applicant."

The validity of Section 19 of the Act was challenged and this Court
in the case of Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for 171e Union Territory of Delhi, H

-''
·,
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R:
A [1962] 2 SCR 125, has upheld its constitutional validity. In that case, it was
contended that Act has vested in the competent authority the power to
withhold eviction in pursuance of the orders or decrees of courts without
affording any guidance or laying down any principles for his guidance on
the basis of which it could exercise his discretion and thereby vested in him
B an arbitrary and unguided power to pick and choose the decree-holders to
whom he would permit execution and those to whom he would refuse such
relief. Court negatived the said contention by observing that the Act was
enacted for two purposes; (1) the improvement and clearance of slum areas
in certain Union territories, and (ii) for the protection of tenants in such
areas from eviction. While considering Chapter III which is headed 'slum
C improvement' and Chapter IV which is headed "Slum Clearance and
Re-Development" Court observed that in cases where the buildings and the
entire area are to be ordered to be demolished, the dwellers would, of
course, have to vacate but it is presumed that alternative accommodations
would necessarily have to be provided before any such order is made. And
D the process would have to be carried out in an orderly fashion if the
purpose of the Act is to be fulfilled and the policy behind it, namely the
establishment of slum dwellers in healthier and more comfortable tene-
ments so as· to improve the health and morals of the community, is to be
achieved. The Court observed "the policy of the enactment would seem to
suggest that the slum dweller should not be evicted unless alternative
E accommodation could be obtained for him". Court further observed "We
need only add that it was not, and could not be, disputed that the guidance
which we have held could be derived from the enactment, and that it bears
a reasonable and rational relationship to the object to be attained by the
Act and, in fact, would fulfil the purpose which the law seeks to achieve,
p viz., the orderly elimination of slums, with interim protection for the slum
f
dwellers until they were moved into better dwellings." (Emphasis added)

Keeping in mind the scheme of the Act and the interpretation of
Section 19 as aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is required to be appreciated. The learned counsel for the
G appellant submitted that the High Court erroneously had interpretated that
factors mentioned in Sub - Section (4)(a), (b) & (c) are to be considered
as alternative and not consequetive. It is his contention that both these
factors, namely, whether alternative accommodation within the means of
the tenant would be available to him if he is required to vacate and whether
H the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum
PUNNU RAM AND ORS. v. C.L. GUPTA [SHAH, J.] 945

area are to be decided by the competent authority before granting or A
refusing the permission under sub- section (3) to institute the suit or the
proceedings for obtaining any decree or order for eviction of a tenant from
any building or any land in slum area or the permission to execute decree
or order obtained in any suit or proceedings before the commencement of
the Act. It is contended that the legislature has taken caution in using the
word that competent authority shall taken into account following factors as
B
mentioned in clause (a), (b) & (c) of Sub-Section 4 before granting or
refusing to grant such permission, hence, all factor are required to be taken
into consideration jointly.

At the time of hearing, it is admitted that no rules are framed or c
guidelines are laid down prescribing other factors as contemplated by
clause (c) of Section 19(4). Therefore, at present only two factors are
required to be taken into consideration before granting or refusing to grant
permission as contemplated by sub-section (3). Considering the provisions
of Section 19, it is apparent that permission to file suit for evicting a tenant D
from any building or land in a slum area or to permit execution of such
decree or order obtained prior to coming into force of the amendment Act,
the competent authority is required to take into account factors mentioned
in Clauses (a) & (b) of Sub-section (4). If the factors mentioned in Clause
(a) is satisfied, that is to say, if the alternative accommodation within the
means of the tenant is available, then there is no reason to hold that second E
factor is also required to be satisfied before granting permission under
sub-section (3). In such a case, there could not be any justifiable reason
for the competent authority to refuse to grant permission for filing the suit
or proceedings for obtaining any decree or order for eviction of a tenant
or for granting permission to execute decree or order, if obtained. Further, F
Clause (b) provides that before granting such permission, the competent
authority should be satisfied whether the eviction is in the interest of
improvement and clearance of the slum areas and if it is in the interest of
improvement and clearance of the slum areas, then permission for eviction
can be granted. In such cases also, a tenant wouid not be put to any
hardship if he is evicted. The reason is, if there is a scheme of clearance G
of the slum area framed by the competent authority, then as observed by
this Court in the case of 'Jyoti Pershad' (supra), the policy of the enactment
suggests that slum dwellers should not be evicted unless alternative accom-
modation to be made could be obtained for him; that if the buildings or
the entire area are to be ordered to be demolished, in that event, the H
'
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A dwellers would, of course, have to vacate, but it' was presumed that alter-
native accommodation 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 tenant but it is required fo be provided within
reasonable time. Eviction process and improvement or re-construction
process is required to be carried out in an orderly fashion if the purpose
B of the act is to be fulfilled. Further, if the building is required by the owner
for demolition or re-construction or improvement, then Section 20A takes ·t
care of the tenants. It provides that if the tenant desires to be replaced in
the occupation of the building after completion of the work of improve-
ment or re-erection of the building, then he is required to file an applica-
C tion before the competent authority. On the basis of this section, if the
tenant is evicted on the ground of improvement or demolition of the
building in the slum area, then tenant is required to be provided accom-
modation in the improved or re-constructed building. Relevant part of
Section 20A is as under :
D
"20A (1) Where a tenant in occupation of any building in a
slum area vacates any building or is evicted therefrom on the
ground that it was required for the purpose of executing any work
of improvement or for the purpose of re- erection of the building,
the tenant may within such time as may be prescribed, file a decla-
E ration with the competent authority that he desires to be replaced in
occupation of the building after the completion of the work of
improvement or re-erection of the bui7ding, as the case may be.
(Emphasis added)

F
(2) On receipt of such declaration, the competent authority shall
by order require the owner of the building to furnish to it, within
such time as may be prescribed, the plans of the work of improvement
or re-erection of the building and estimates of the cost thereof and
such other particulars as may be necessary and shall, on the basis
G of such plans and estimates and particulars, if any, furnished and
having regard to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 20B
and after holding such inquiry as it may think fit, provisionally
determine the rent that would be payment by the tenant if he were
+
to be replaced in occupation of the building in pursuance of the
H declaration made by him under sub-section (1) (Emphasis added)
PUNNU RAM AND ORS. v. C.L. GUPTA [SHAH, J.] 947

(3) ····································· A
(4) .................................... .

Hence, even if these two factors mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of
sub-section (4) are to be taken into account as alternative factors by the
competent authority before granting permission to file a suit for eviction B
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. Hence, the finding
given by the High Court that in a given case, the tenant may not be
provided with alternative accommodation is not only against the decision
rendered by this Court in the case of Jyoti Prasad, but also against the c
scheme of the Act. However, the High Court was right in holding that the
factors which are mentioned in clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (4) of
Section 19 are to be taken into account as alternative factors.

In the result, the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent and D
stand disposed of accordingly.

V.S.S. Appeals allowed.