WALAITI RAM Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment would dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 553 and 554 of 1985 as the common questions of law and facts are involved. These petitions have been filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') by landlord Shri Walaiti Ram to challenge the judgment dated 4.9.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority Ludhiana. The Appellate Authority, has reversed the judgment dated 23.4.1984 passed by the Rent Controller allowing the petition filed by the landlord- petitioner under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the tenant-respondent and dismissing the petition filed by the tenant respondent under sections 10 and 12 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of these petitions are that the tenant-respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Act praying for issuance of directions to the landlord-petitioner to restore amenity of roof as the same was demolished by him forcibly and without any just or sufficient cause. He alleged that he has been tenant under the previous owner Wattan Singh since 1954. The present landlord-petitioners are alleged to have purchased the demised premises from Wattan Singh in 1973. It has further been alleged that the tenant-respondent Harbans Lal is being harassed since then. The tenant-respondent has also averred that on 28.7.1980 the landlord- petitioner got him arrested along with his two sons in proceedings initiated under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and on the night intervening 28th/29th July, 1980 he pulled down the roof of the room in the occupation of the tenant- respondent when he along with his sons was in police custody.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller recorded the findings that the tenant- respondent Harbans Lal has been in possession of one room and the roof of that room had fallen during the rainy season. It was further found that both the parties were arrested under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. on 29.12.1980. After the roof had fallen Walaiti Ram the landlord-petitioner had filed a suit against the tenant-respondent No. 1 and the civil court had granted the stay order restraining tenant-respondent No. 1 from reconstructing the roof. The Rent Controller also concluded that the tenant-respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the replacement of roof as his case was not covered under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act. Another important finding recorded by the Rent Controller is that during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings before him, roof of another room had also fallen which is part of the building including the room under the tenancy of tenant-respondent No. 1. The version of the tenant- respondent No. 1 that roof had been pulled down by the landlord-petitioner deliberately was rejected. On the aforementioned findings of facts the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant-respondent No. 1 and the application filed by the tenant-respondent No. 1 for replacement of the roof under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act was dismissed with costs. 4-A. The Appellate Authority on appeal reversed the findings on the aforementioned issued and allowed the application of tenant-respondent No. 1 and dismissed the ejectment petition filed by the landlord-petitioner. The Appellate Authority proceeded on the presumption that in the absence of any damage to the walls of the room, the roof could not have fallen on account of rain. It has further been observed that if the rain was to damage the roof resulting in its fall, then the walls were also bound to collapse. The Appellate Authority also found that Walaiti Ram along with his labour pulled down the roof deliberately. It was also found by the Appellate Authority that tenant-respondent No. 1 was arrested on 28/29.7.1980. The views of the Appellate Authority in this regard read as under :