KULDIP KAUR Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, whereby the appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner against the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the petition are given are hereunder :-The petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act II of 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act"), for eviction of the respondent on May 26, 1976, interalia, on the ground that the demised premises which is a shop consisting of three rooms on the ground floor, had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. This application was dismissed on July 26, 1978, by the Rent Controller with the finding that though the building required extensive repairs, it had not been proved by the, petitioner that it had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. While this matter was still pending, before the Rent Controller, the respondent received a notice from the Cantonment Board, Ferozepur, under Section 126 of the Cantonment Board Act, 1924, calling upon him to make necessary repairs to the demised premises failing which the building would be demolished by the Board itself. The respondent thereafter (i. e. on January 21, 1978) filed a suit for injunction against the Cantonment Board as also the petitioner seeking to restrain them from demolishing the demised premises This suit was dismissed on April 20, 1979 and the appeal filed thereto was also dismissed on September 7, 1981. The Second Appeal in this Court was also dismissed on July 19, 1982, with the observation that the house in question was not capable of repairs and it was in a dilapidated condition. The respondent also filed an application under Section 10 of the Act which too was dismissed with the finding that the allegations that the petitioner had removed the bricks from the roof of the demised premises, had not been proved. It was in this situation that the petitioner filed yet another application on January 22, 1981, under Section 13 of the Act, seeking eviction of the respondent inter-alia once again on the ground that the premises in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the respondent was, therefore, liable to be evicted. The case of the petitioner now was that a substantial portion of roof of the demised premises had fallen down after dismissal of the earlier application on July 26, 1978.

(3.) THE application was opposed by the respondent by filing a written statement and it was stated therein that the dismissal of the earlier application on July 26, 1978, barred the second application in view of provisions of Section 14 of the Act. On the question raised, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-