JAGDISH CHAND ETC Vs. BACHNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the landlords under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arises in the circumstances which are these. The petitioner-landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for the eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises which is a room, on two grounds, namely, (a) that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent for a certain period, and (b) that the premises had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation and were, therefore, required for reconstruction. The ground of default, i.e., non-payment of arrears of rent was set at anught by the tender of arrears of rent and the other charges on the first date of hearing and this ground is no longer pressed even in the present Revision Petition. As regards the other ground, the Rent Controller after appreciating the evidence produced by the parties, came to a firm finding that half of the roof of the room in question had fallen down and the other half which was made in sirki and mud could fall down any time. On account of these circumstances, the Rent Controller concluded that the premises were not fit and safe for human habitation and required re-erection. He, therefore, ordered the eviction of the tenant from the property, though he allowed the tenant one month's time to vacate the same.

(2.) The tenant took the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Barnala. The Appellate Authority took the view that it was a case of carrying out necessary repairs to the roof and not a case of structural alteration. Another point which was taken into consideration, was that according to the admission of the landlord, the tenant had herself carried out some repairs of the roof during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings. The Appellate Authority relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharaja Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Badri Parshad Seth, 1963 65 PunLR 452 concluded that the demised premises were no longer unfit or unsafe for human habitation, and hence he set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. It is against this decision of the Appellate Authority that the present Revision petition has been filed by the landlord.

(3.) In so far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute that substantial portion of the roof which was of kacha construction, had fallen down and it was during the pendency of the ejectment application that the tenant had carried out some repairs to bring the roof into its original shape. It is also undisputed that these repairs were carried out by her without obtaining the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 12 of the Act.