Judgment:
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) This is the tenant's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against order dated Sep. 14, 1972, of respondent No. 3, the Competent Authority constituted under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act 1956 (for short 'the Act'). By this order, the competent authority granted permission to respondent No. I, the landlord of the premises, to file proceedings for eviction against the petitioner.
(2) The petition under S. 19 of the Act was filed on Dec. 24, 1970. It was against the petitioner and his brother Gopi Chand. both of whom were stated to be the joint tenants. Gopi Chand did not contest the petition as it appears he bad acquired an alternative accommodation. The petition was contested only by Dhan Kumar, the petitioner now before me.
(3) At the outset it was pointed out by Mr. Y.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, about the futility of hearing this petition after 16 years of the Impugned order and by this time the status of the petitioner tenant might have improved or even he might have suffered in his financial status. But, then this is the stage of justice and even if the landlord succeeds the parties will have another round of litigation before the Rent Controller. However, this should not detain me in hearing and deciding the matter on the basis of the law as it is.
(4) The point which needs consideration is quite short. It is the status of the tenant. The competent authority held that the tenant was having an income of Rs. 1500.00 per month and was in a position to acquire alternative accommodation outside the slum area. This finding was principally based on a copy of the profit and loss statement of the business run by the tenant in partnership with another person. The competent authority held that the net income of the firm was Rs. 34,837.50 and he calculated the annual income of the tenant at half of this amount. The profit and loss account pertained to the period from 1.4.1968 to 31.3.1969. This finding was attacked by Mr. Jain, and I think rightly, as the statement would show that it was the gross income and not the net income. The net income was Rs. 15,665.08. On that basis, however, also the income of the tenant would be about Rs. 650.00 per month. In his affidavit, however, the tenant stated that his income was around Rs. 300.00 per month. Obviously, he made a statement which was not true. Then the question arises as to why the tenant did not file his accounts for the years from 1969-70,1970-71 and 1971-72. The accounts for these three subsequent years would have been complete much before the date when the impugned order was made. The profit and loss statement for the 1968-69 period was filed by the landlord himself which I am told was taken by him from some other judicial proceeding in which the tenant was a party. Non-filing of the accounts by the tenant for all these years raises a strong presumption against him that he was earning handsomely and was a man of means. Otherwise, there appears to be no reason why accounts could not have been filed. In the circumstances, thereforee, I will not believe the affidavit of the tenant that his income is only Rs. 300.00 per month and he is not in a position to rent out an alternative accommodation. Since he has tiled an affidavit which is not true and has suppressed evidence which would have been quite relevant for the decision of the case, the affidavit of the tenant cannot be referred to. This is not a case for me to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The impugned order is affirmed. The petition is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.