AMAR CHAND TANGRI Vs. EVERGREEN HOSIERY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is by the landlord, who has consistently failed in the two subordinate Courts, to seek the eviction of the respondent-tenant in terms of Section 3(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner filed the present application before the Rent Controller inter alia pleading that the demised premises, i.e., ground floor of building No. B-IV-1905 situated in Dal Bazar, Ludhiana, now in occupation of the tenant, had outlived its span of life and major part of it, i.e. the upper two floors had since fallen, and the entire building was in a dangerous condition, meaning thereby, was unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It was also maintained that the Municipal Corporation had served a notice (Exhibit AW-2/A) on him on 2nd August, 1977 under Section 273 of the Act, directing the landlord to pull down the said building on account of the reasons stated above. This claim of his was successfully contested and countered by the respondent, who pointed out that the said notice of the Corporation was only a manoeuvred thing with a view to add substance to his otherwise false and frivolous plea that the building in occupation of the tenant had in any way been rendered unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It was maintained that the condition of the demised shop was good. He also highlighted that the first floor of the building which was in occupation of the landlord had deliberately been pulled down with a view to damage the roof of the shop in his occupation, and thereby to create a ground to seek his eviction. He, as a matter of fact, got the debris or the Malba removed from the top of the roof, through a Court injunction against the landlord. In nutshell the plea of the respondent was that the proceedings had been launched against him with a mala fide intention to harass him and to throw him out of the premises in question. The trial of the case, in the light of the above noted pleas, as already indicated, has negated the stand of the petitioner-landlord.

(3.) I , however, find it difficult to subscribe to the submission of the learned counsel. The matter appears to have been squarely concluded against him by the Apex Court in Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1432, wherein the following meaningful observations occur :-