LALIT BEHARI Vs. SANT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LALIT Behari Petitioner applied for the eviction of the respondent, Sant Lal, from a shop situated in Rori Bazar, Sirsa, mainly on the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he had been directed by the Municipal Committee to demolish the same. The tenant resisted the application and pleaded that the building was fit for habitation and that the landlord had managed to get a notice issued by the Municipal Committee in collusion with the president who was related to him with the only object of getting the tenant evicted. In view of this, the parties went to trial mainly on the following issue:-"whether building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation?" relying on the rule laid down in Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963-65 Pun LR 528, chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram, 1964-66 Pun LR 503 and Raj Kumari v. Shadi Lal, 196971 pun LR 245, the learned Rent controller held that this ground was not available to the landlord as he had not pleaded and proved that the premises were wanted for re-erection as the building was in a dilapidated condition.

(2.) FOLLOWING the ratio of the above decisions the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal of the landlord, and being aggrieved, he filed the present revision petition challenging the correctness of the view taken by the lower Courts. The case first came up before P. C. Pandit, J; and on behalf of the petitioner it was pointed out that in Dr. Piara Lal Kapur v. Kaushalya Devi, 1970-72 Pun LR 411, following the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sant Ram v. Mekhu Lal and co. , AIR 1968 Delhi 299 (FB), it was ruled that it was not necessary for the landlord while establishing the ground mentioned in Section 13 (3) (a) (iii) of the east Punjab Rent Restriction Act to plead and prove that the premises were required for carrying out any building work. In view of the divergence of judicial opinion between two Division Benches of this Court on the question whether it was necessary for the landlord to plead and establish that he required the premises in order to carry out any building work or whether it was enough to prove that the building had become unsafe and unfit for humanoid habitation, P. C. Pandit, J; referred the case to a Full Bench and it is in this manner that the case has come up before us for final disposal.

(3.) THE ground of eviction with which we are concerned in the present case was stated in the petition in the following terms:-