SUBHASH CHANDER RAMAN KUMAR Vs. RATTAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE undisputed facts which emerged in the course of arguments are that the shop in dispute as such, does not exist at the spot in any form today. Admittedly, two walls and the roof have been pulled down by the Municipal Committee. It is claimed that the southern wall has been rendered unfit by the landlord himself in the coarse of demolishing a portion of another shop in his possession adjoining the shop in dispute. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority after appreciation of evidence and taking into consideration the report of the Executive Engineer, Exhibit Al as well as the reports of the Local Commissioner Exhibit R-l and R-2, came to the conclusion that the shop in dispute is unfit for human habiation. I find no impropriety in the said findings of fact arrived at by the rent authorities after due appreciation of the evidence.

(2.) THE contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are to the effect that the landlord cannot take advantage of his own wrong. It is he who had purchased the shop in dispute on 8-7-1985 and while demolishing the adjoining shop in his possession caused damage to the southern wall of the shop in dispute thereby making the same unfit. It was further claimed that the landlord got the building demolished by the Municipal Committee. Suits for reconstruction of the same against the Municipal Committee as well as against the landlord are pending. Copies of the plaints in the said suits have been produced in this court as Annexures P1 and P2. I need not go into the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as there is no such issue which has been raised or pressed before the Courts below. 1 bough the learned counsel has been successfully able to show that there was a specific plea raised by him in the written statement, be that as it is, there is no gain-saving that the building was demolished by the Municipal Committee. However, there is no finding that it was demolished at the instance of the landlord. : In view of the material placed on record, no such firm finding can be arrived at, in these summary proceedings. It is, however, made clear that if the civil Court where undisputedly suits are pending comes to a finding as fact that demolition was got effected by the landlord through the agency of the Municipal committee illegally, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek appropriate relief in the said proceedings. But no relief can be granted to the petitioner in these proceedings.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently argued that since there is no shop which is in existence at the spot, only two walls are standing there and other two walls and the roof have fallen down, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of 'building' from which ejectment can be ordered. I find no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If this submission is accepted, it would result in draconion rule of law. No body would be ejected from a building rented out, is case the building either falls during pendency of the proceedings or prior to it. The premises which were rented out to the petitioner was a building' and he claims to be in possession of the same. The argument is destructive of itself. On the one band, the petitioner contends that two walls are still standing at the spot and the building is fit as he is running a silver-smith shop there The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that once a building has fallen it no more remains a 'building' as envisaged by the Rent Restriction Act. I do not find any force in the contention raised that after the premises falls down, it would go out of the purview of the term building