CHUHAR MAL Vs. BALAK RAM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALAK Ram and his brother Munshi Ram made an application to the Rent Controller for the eviction of their tenant Chuhar Mai from a shop. In support of the petition the landlords alleged that they wanted to re -erect the shop and that the shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. These allegations were denied by the tenant, and the Rent Controller framed an issue which ran - -

(2.) NO issue was framed concerning the landlord's allegation that they wanted to re -erect the shop possibly because both parties felt that, if the fact of the shop being unsafe and unfit for human habitation was established, an eviction order would follow. The Rent Controller, however, found against the landlords on this issue and dismissed the petition. The landlords appealed and the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and on that conclusion ordered the tenant's eviction. Chuhar Mai, the tenant, then filed a revision petition in this Court and, although the conclusion of fact could not be disputed, it was urged in support of the petition that in law the eviction order was bad, as here was no finding that the landlords required the shop for rebuilding it. The petition Was heard by Mahajan, J., sitting alone, and the argument presented to him was that under the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act the landlords had to prove two things - -(1) that the premises were unsafe or unfit for human habitation, and (2) that they required them for rebuilding - -, and, since there was no finding in favour of the landlords, the eviction order could not stand. In support of this argument reliance was (placed on a decision of this Court, Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P.L.R. 528, where Falshaw, J., had taken the view that a landlord seeking a tenant's eviction on this particular ground had to show not only that the building was unsafe but also that he wished to re -erect it. Mahajan, J., however, felt that the view of Falshaw, J., was not sound and he directed that the revision petition be heard by a larger Bench, and the petition has, therefore, been placed before us.

(3.) IN Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P.L.R. 528, on which the Petitioner's counsel relies, Falshaw, J., held that this provision should be taken as arranged thus - -