(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court dated May 21, 1958, in Civil Revision application No. 27 of 1958 of that Court. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed an application in revision made by the appellant herein in the following circumstances.
(2.) The appellant, Saharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh is the owner of the premises known as Kanzor Hall in Simla. The respondent, Badri Prasad Seth, is in occupation of the premises as a tenant and is running a. cinema therein which is known as Revoli theatre or Revolt cinema. The correspondence between the parties shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive engineer, Simla Provincial Division, inspected the cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority, namely. Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and noted six defects, one of which was, to use the words of the executive Engineer, "the right hand pillar of the screen has cracked and has gone out of plumb. " the existence of these defects was communicated to the respondent and also to the Muncipal Committee, Simla. The respondent in his turn communicated the existence of these defects to the appellant by a letter dated April 17, 1956. In that letter the respondent suggested to the appellant that the defect in the pillar should be removed before the beginning of June, 1956, when the rains were likely to commence. The respondent removed the other defects which were of a minor nature; but getting no reply from the appellant, he again wrote to him on September 17, 1956, and asked him to take early steps to repair the pillar to avoid any mishap. The respondent also intimated to the appellant that the cost of repairs to the pillar was likely to be in the neighbourhood of Rs. 5,000. 00. The appellant took no action in the matter for some time. On September 24, 1956 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction act, 1949 (East Punjab Act No. III of 1949) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was amended and a clause was inserted in s. 13 (3) (a) thereof which entitled the landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in the case of any building if he required it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if the building had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. On April 9, 1956, the appellant wrote to the President, Simla municipal Committee, asking him to get the pillar in the Ranzor Hall inspected by the Executive engineer in order to have his opinion whether the pillar was really in a dangerous condition and required any action on the part of the Municipal committee under s. 116 of the Punjab Municipal act, 1911 (Punjab Act III of 1911).
(3.) On October 30, 1956, the Secretary, Municipal committee, Simla, wrote to the respondent about the defect in respect of the right hand pillar of the screen and required the respondent by means of a notice to do the repairs within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. The Secretary issued the notice purporting to act under ss. 113 and 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It appears that the Municipal Committee had the pillar inspected again in November, 1956, by the Executive Engineer, simla Central Division. This time the Executive Engineer suggested that the two end walls (pillars) supporting the beams for the screen were cracked and therefore must be replaced by thicker walls. The Municipal Committee considered this report' and came to the conclusion that as a precautionary measure what was necessary was to fill the doorway in the pillar with masonry so that the whole might become a solid block. On April 11, 1957, the Municipal Committee wrote to the appellant asking the latter to fill the doorway with masonry so that the whole pillar might become a solid block. This was in modification of the earlier notice which had suggested more extensive repairs to the pillar. But before April 11, 1957, when the new notice from the Municipal Committee was received, the appellant had already made an application on December 1,1956, under s. 13 of the Act praying for an order from the Controller directing the respondent to put the appellant in possession of the property on the ground that the appellant required the building for replacing the end walls supporting the beams of the screen by thicker walls. This application was contested by the respondent mainly on the ground that the appellant's claim was not bona fide and that the appellant did not really require the building to be vacated for the purpose of making the repairs to the pillar in question.