AMAR NATH DHAWAN Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision petition against the order of ejectment passed against him.

(2.) AFTER purchase of the property on 2.9.1985 through a registered sale deed, landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant petitioner on Jan. 14, 1986 on the ground of non-payment of rent, personal necessity and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The ground of personal necessity was pressed join the allegation that the accommodation in possession of the landlords was not sufficient for them and thus needed the demised premises for their own use and occupation and that they would use the same after demolishing the constructing it anew.

(3.) MR . Cuccria, learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail any of the two findings recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellant Authority. The learned counsel only contended that having regard to the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(i), 13(3)(c) and 13(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called, 'that Act') it was not permissible to a landlord to simultaneously ask for ejectment of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the two grounds being mutually destructive of each other. The learned counsel stressed that the application for ejectment should have been dismissed on this ground alone. According to the learned counsel, once the building was found to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it could not be used for any purpose whatsoever except for demolition and reconstruction and once that was so the ground of personal necessity came to an end. In the support of his submission, the learned counsel strongly relied upon Section 13(6) which provides that a landlord who has obtained possession of a building under Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 and puts the same to any use or lets it out to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who had been evicted could apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing that the possession of such building be restored to him. Since in the present case a categorical finding had been recorded that the building has became unfit and unsafe for human habitation, therefore, it could not be used or let out and the demised house could only be demolished and constructed anew. In support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the following observations made in Balbir Singh v. Hari Ram, AIR 1983 (P&H) 132 : 1982(2) RCR 329.