Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Proceedings for eviction of [occupants] not to be taken without permission of the prescribed authority :- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the being in force, no person shall except with the previous permission in writing of prescribed authority- (a) institute, after the commencement of this Act any suit or proceedings for obtaining any decree or order for the eviction 1[an occupant] from any building or land in such area: or (b) where any degree or order is obtained in any suit or proceeding instituted before such commencement for the eviction of 1[an occupant] 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 prescribed authority in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of such application, the prescribed authority after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard and after making such summary enquiry into the circumstances of the case as it thinks fit shall, by order in writing, either grant or refuse to grant such permission. (4) In granting or refusing to grant permission under sub-section (3), the prescribed authority shall take into account the following factors, namely:-- (a) whether alternative accommodation within the means of the 1[occupant] would be available to him if he were evicted: (b) whether the eviction is in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum area; (c) such other factors, if any, as may be prescribed. (5) Where the prescribed 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. 2[Explanation.-In, this section and, in sections 31,32, and 33, ‘occupant’ means an occupier, not bring an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using, his hand or building.] NOTES The respondent, ‘K’ had obtained a decree for eviction against the petitioners and thereafter, filed execution petitions for taking delivery of possession of the disputed areas from the petitioners. One of the defences taken by the petitioners in those execution petitions filed by the respondent decree-holder was that s the area, which was the subject-matter of the suit and from which they were sought to be ejected, had already been declared as slum area under a notification issued under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 the execution petition cannot be maintained unless permission has been obtained from the Slum Clearance Board as required under Section 29 of the said Act. The executing Court relying on Section 5(2) of the Act held that as 19 the notification declaring the area to be a slum area had become unenforceable on the expiry of two years as contemplated by Section 5(2), the embargo contained in Section 29 was no longer in operation and that therefore, the respondent decree holder can maintain the execution petitions without any permission from the Slum Clearance Board, in that view, the executing Court allowed the execution to proceed and directed delivery of possession in accordance with the decree obtained against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order of the executing Court, the petitioners filed a revision. Held:- The two years period referred to in Section 5(2) applied only to a notification issued under Section 5(1) preventing the erection of any building in a slum area, without permission, and it did not refer to any notification issued under Section 3 declaring a particular area as a slum area. Therefore, the Executing Court was in error in stating that the declaration declaring the area as slum area has ceased by efflux of time and therefore, Section 29 could not come in the way. The application of Section 29 could not be avoided on the ground that two years time had elapsed since the issue of the notification declaring the area as slum area. A conjoint reading of all the sub-sections of Section 29 of the Act would clearly indicate that the legislature intended to impose a restriction on the owner of the land either executing the decree obtained earlier or instituting a suit for eviction against an occupant of slum area, by imposing a precondition that the owner of the slum area should get the permission of the requisite authority either for filing the suit for eviction or for executing the decree obtained earlier against an occupant without such permission. So long as there is no permission in writing obtained by the owner of the slum area execution proceedings cannot be maintained in view of the prohibition contained in Section 29 (1980)2MLJ83=93 LW 142=AIR 1980 Madras 246. Contention, as to petition without prior sanction by the Slum Board being incompetent - landlord securing order under section 29 - order revoked later - Order once passed not liable to be revoked or cancelled. (1984) 2MLJ 310 A conjoint reading of all the sub-sections of Section 29 of the Act clearly indicate that the legislature intends to impose a restriction on the owner of the land either executing the decree obtained earlier or instituting a suit for eviction against the occupant of slum area by imposing a re-condition that the owners of slum area should get the permission of the requisite authority either for filing a suit for eviction or for executing the decree that has already been obtained. AIR 1980 Madras Page 246 Dated 17th October 1979 Overruling 1977 (II)MLJ Short Notes Page 17 1985 TLNJ 308 Dt. 29-10-85.