RAKHA Vs. SHADI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the landlord whose application for ejectment was accepted by the Rent Controller, but on appeal the Appellate Authority has reversed that order and dismissed the application.

(2.) Shadi Singh, is a tenant of the shop situated in Malerkotla, at Rs. 8/- per month. Rakha landlord, brought an application for ejectment under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of the said tenant, inter alia on the ground that premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation The Rent Controller accepted the contentions of the landlord and found that premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, and accordingly, directed the ejectment of the tenant. In appeal, this finding of the Rent Controller has been reversed by the Appellate Authority as it came to the conclusion that at present the shop was quite safe and fit for human habitation. Feeling aggrieved again to this, landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since some portion of the shop had fallen and it had thus become unfit for human habitation, the landlord had the right to seek ejectment of his tenant under Section 13(3)(iii) of the Act, which inter alia provides that if a building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, a landlord may apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. According to the learned counsel, the tenant by making certain construction,; and thus making the building fit for human habitation, cannot plead that the building is not unfit for human habitation as present. condition of the building is to be seen at the time of the ejectment application. The tenant by making unauthorised construction cannot deprive the landlord of his right to seek ejectment on the ground that the building has now become safe or fit for human habitation. In support of his contention, he referred to Dr. Piara Lal Kapur v. Smt. Kaushalaya Devi,1970 PunLR 411, and Ganga Parshad and another v. Davi Lal, 1973 RCJ 468.