LAWS(P&H)-1952-11-17

DIGAMBAR JAIN SABHA, SIMLA Vs. MESSRS EXPRESS BLOCK

Decided On November 24, 1952
DIGAMBAR JAIN SABHA, SIMLA Appellant
V/S
MESSRS EXPRESS BLOCK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rule obtained by the landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against an order of District Judge J.S. Bedi, dated the 30th of April, 1952 partially allowing the appeal of the tenant and thus refusing to order eviction.

(2.) The landlord made an application to the Rent Controller asking for eviction of the tenant under section 13(3) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the ground that the learned required the premises for its own use, the landlord being a Society that it wanted to rebuild a part of the premises, that the tenant had, contrary to the agreement between the parties, installed machinery in a portion of the premises which was worked at all odd hours and caused vibrations which were dangerous to the life of the building, that the continuous working of the machinery created a considerable noise and was nuisance, that the tenants were using the upper out-houses for printing by heavy machinery which was contrary to the agreement in so far as that property could only be used for the purpose of residence and that the tenants had sublet the premises without the permission of the landlord. These allegations were denied and the Controller held that the landlord did require the premises for his personal use but did not require it for pulling down any portion of the building and rebuilding it. He also found that the working of the machinery was a nuisance and that a portion of the premises had been sublet by the tenant, but on these findings he ordered eviction from part of the premises and dismissed the application with regard to the rest.

(3.) On appeal being taken to the District Judge the only point which seems to have been urged with any degree of seriousness was the question of subletting, and it was found that a portion of the building had been sublet, but the appeal was allowed on the ground that in the opinion of the appellate authority the tenant should not be evicted from any portion of the premises.