GURDIAL SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 12th September, 1973 Om Parkash landlord filed an application for eviction of Gurdial Singh tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban (Rent and Restriction) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the ground that the shop, which was let out to him had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as major portion of the roof had fallen down because out of the two archs one has fallen down and the other arch was also weak and so were the walls which were likely to fall. Along with the petition for eviction an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner was filed so that he could immediately go to the spot and report to the Rent Controller about the condition of the building. The Rent Controller appointed Shri Kultar Singh Advocate as the Local Commissioner, who submitted his report on 14th September, 1973, Exhibit A-2, according to which roof of the back portion and the back arch had fallen down and the other arch was being supported with pillars. While the case was pending, the tenant is alleged to have made substantial re-construction and repairs without the permission of the Court or without the written consent of the landlord. This necessitated the filing of the second petition for eviction on the ground of making alterations. Since the tenant had challenged the user of the premises by then that was also added as a ground. In the second application, another Advocate was appointed to make a report about the material additions and alteration made by the tenant, to prove the condition of the building and also to find out to what use the premises were being put. The landlord also produced Shamsher Singh Overseer to prove the condition of the building. The Rent Controller, after the evidence was led, allowed both the petitions of the landlord and after recording finding on all matters in favour of the landlord and against the tenant, ordered eviction of the tenant in both the cases. The tenant remains unsuccessful before the Appellate Authority. Civil Revision No. 276 of 1978 has been filed against the order of eviction passed in the second petition and Civil Revision No. 277 of 1978 has been filed against the order of eviction passed in the first petition. Since they are between the same parties, both these petitions are being disposed of together.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire record I am of the view that Civil Revision No. 277 of 1978 has no merit whatsoever. Admittedly, major part of the roof of the shop caved in due to the collapse of one arch. It is further proved that the other arch is also weak and is being supported with pillars. The building is a very old one and in the aforesaid state of affairs the two Courts below were justified in ordering the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Accordingly, Civil Revision No. 277 of 1978 is dismissed and the tenant is given one month's time to vacate the premises.

(3.) AS regards material alterations, those are of setting up of a new roof and setting up of pillars to support the other arch of the remaining old roof. According to the evidence brought on the record, the new roof which the tenant has constructed is wholly meaningless because there was a Kikar tree on one side of the demised premises and the roof has been constructed in such a way that the Kikar trees passes through that roof. If the landlord was to construct roof he would not have done so. Either the roof could be constructed in such a way that the Kikar tree does not come in the way or the Kikar tree would have been first removed and then roof could be laid. In this manner, the finding of the two Courts about the material alterations by the tenants, so as to diminish the value and utility of the premises, can be justifiable upheld.