BIKRAM SINGH Vs. CHUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur dated February 20, 1976 whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for ejectment of his tenant was maintained. The premises in dispute are situated on the Railway Road, Hoshiarpur. Earlier Prehlad Bhagat, Smt. Karmi and Sita Devi were the owners of the property in dispute when it was let out to Chuni Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- vide rent note date May, 11, 1962 for 11 months. After expiry of the said period, Chuni Lal continued as statutory tenant On June 10, 1969 the demised premises were sold in favour of Bikram Singh, present petitioner-landlord. He filed the ejectment application on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human-habitation and therefore, he wanted to demolish the same and reconstruct it. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-tenant, it was denied that Bikram Singh had purchased the property in dispute and it was also pleaded that the premises in dispute were fit and safe for human-habitation. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :-

(2.) Learned counsel the petitioner contended that in view of this report made by the Commission, it is apparent that the tenant has made repairs in the premises in dispute during the pendency of this petition in this court, as alleged by him in his application dated November 5, 1980. According to the learned counsel, the tenant had no such right to make the building habitable by making the necessary repairs without any written permission of the landlord or without getting any sanction from the Rent Controller as provided under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the 'Act') the further submitted that this conduct of the tenant proves that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation at the time when the ejectment application was filed and in order to make it habitable, the tenant has made the necessary repairs, which. according to him, are major changes in the construction of the building. Under these circumstances, it was argued that the tenant is liable to be ejected, because the building had become unsafe and unfit for human. habitation at the time of making the ejectment application.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the report of the Local Commission appointed by this Court. The authorities under the Act have dismissed the application for ejectment on the ground that the landlord had failed to prove that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Appellate Authority took the view that except that there is one crack in the wall and that portion of the roof of the room on the upper storey has been demolished are not sufficient to order ejectment of tenant. According to the learned appellate authority, by removing certain bettens from the roof of the room in order to effect the repairs, as is the case of the tenant, no doubt temporarily the said room cannot be put to use, but it cannot be held that the said room has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In my opinion, this approach of the learned Appellate Authority is wholly erroneous and illegal. If once a building has become uhabitable, to say that it can be made use of by making necessary repairs is not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Moreover, the tenant never approached the landlord or the Rent Controller under the Act before making the necessary repairs if he was of the opinion that it was only a question of repair and not of reconstructing the roof as such. In Jagdish Chand and another v. Mst. Bachni Devi,1981 1 RCR 166 it has been held by this Court that the phraseology "has become" used in clause (iii) of section 13 (3) (a) of the Act has just been repeated like the phraseology used in various other clauses of the grounds for ejectment like the one "has been" used in clause (iv) of Section 13 (2) of the Act. Clause (iv) of Section 13 (2) of the Act reads as under-