CHARAN DASS Vs. SHRI VISHWA MITTER & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Charan Dass, tenant-petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullunder, dated November 2, 1976 whereby the order of the Rent Controller declining the ejectment of the tenant was set aside.

(2.) Vishwa Mitter, a landlord respondent, filed a petition for ejectment of his tenant, Charan Dass, inter alia on the ground that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation in much as the Municipal Committee had also issued a notice under Section 113/114 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The relevant averment to this effect in the ejectment application is as under

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the landlord on this very allegation had filed an ejectment application earlier on October 24, 1970 which was decided against him by the Rent Controller on August 10, 1971 and a certified copy of the order is Exhibit R. 1, on the record. According to the learned counsel, the present application for ejectment was filed on September 3, 1974 and no new circumstances has been proved on the record so as to show that the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation during this period, that is, after the order of dismissal of the earlier application and the filing of the present ejectment application. The issuance of notice, Exhibit A. 1, dated July 19, 1974 by the Municipal Committee under Section 113/114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, does not relate to the shop, in dispute, as it relates to shop, bearing No. 1012. Apart from that, this notice was never issued by the Municipal Committee, as it never came up for consideration before the Municipal Committee and no resolution to that effect was ever passed. The Rent Controller has gone into the whole matter and has given very cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Since the Appellate Authority has not discussed the reasons given by the Rent Controller, its finding is vitiated and should be interfered with in revision by this Court.