ROSHAN LAL Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Rent Controller, Barnala, dated April 5, 1991. The facts giving rise to the present revision are briefly, as follows :-

(2.) AN application has been filed by Krishan Chand and Bhagwan Dass, the landlords of the premises, against the revisionist Roshan Lal under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the pendency of the application under Section 13 of the Act, the revisionist Roshan Lal filed an application on December 20, 1990, praying that he wants to get examined the demised premises and the entire building of which the demised premises is a part from one expert namely Pushpinder Pal. His prayer was that he wants to get prepared a site plan and get the entire building photographed in order to ascertain the condition of the entire building of which the demised premises is a part. This application was opposed by the landlord-respondents. The application was disposed of by the Rent Controller by order dated April 5, 1991, with a direction that the landlord Kirshan Chand shall not obstruct the photographer from taking snaps of the demised premises and Chabutra above it and further not to obstruct the preparation of the site plan regarding the demised premises and the Chabutra above it. The application was allowed to this extent and the claim in regard to the inspection of the remaining building was not acceded to. It is this order dated April 5, 1921, which is subject-matter of challenge in this revision.

(3.) AN application under Section 13 of the Act lies in respect of the tenanted building. The landlords can seek eviction of the tenant from the tenanted building on the ground that it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In the circumstances, it is the building which has been let out is the building in dispute and the Rent Controller has to examine as to whether the building which has been let out has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Whether the remaining part of the building is fit for human habitation or not is not relevant to determine that the property which has been let out has become unfit or unsafe for human habitation. To rebut the allegation made by the landlords that the property which has been let out is unsafe or unfit for human habitation, it is not necessary for the tenant to get examined the building which is not a part of the demised premises. The Rent Controller has, consequently, rightly held that the property which is in dispute can be got examined by the tenant, but not the building which is not in dispute in the present application. In my view, the extent to which the application has been allowed will serve the ends of justice and, as such, no interference is called for in this revision by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. The interim order passed by this Court on May 1, 1991, is hereby vacated, Mr. P.K. Palli, learned counsel for the revisionist, states that the date has already been fixed by the Rent Controller in the case. The Rent Controller shall now proceed expeditiously in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.