KAMLA DEVI Vs. KASTURI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 320 and 103 of 1978, as both of them have been filed against the common judgment of the Appellate Authority dated November 22, 1977.

(2.) THE landlady Kamla Devi sought the ejectment of the tenant Kasturi Lal from the premises, in dispute, on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller passed the eviction order against him On the other hand M/s Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander filed the application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for seeking permission to make necessary repairs to the premises. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. It deserves mention at this stage that both the petitions, i e., the one for the eviction of the tenant Kasturi Lal from the premises, and the other on behalf of M/s. Kasturi Lal Subhash Chancier, for seeking permission to make necessary repairs thereof, were consolidated and disposed of by one judgment dated May 1,1976. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the plea by the landlady that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. However, on the issue whether it was Kasturi Lal or the M/s. Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander, who was the tenant on the premises, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that it was M/s - Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander who was a tenant thereon. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for repairs of the premises was maintained. Aggrieved against the findings of the Appellate Authority, the landlady has filed Civil Revision Petition No 330 of 1978 whereas M/s Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander have filed Civil Revision Petition No. 103 of 1978.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , Civil Revision Petition No. 330 of 1978 succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the tenant is restored. Civil Revision Petition No. 103 of 1978, is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant Kasturi Lal, is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month and also as undertaking, in writing, is given that after the expiry of the said period of three months, he will vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the landlady.