BISHAN DASS Vs. SHRIMATI PHULLAN RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant in a shop situate in Grain Market (Mandi Harding Ganj,) Kapurthala, which is owned by the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner is in occupation of the shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 18 vide rent note dated 8-10-1956 which was executed by the petitioner in favour of Hari Chand, the previous owner of the shop. The shop was purchased by the respondents on 29th February, 1964. On an application filed by the respondents under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the petitioner on 28th February, 1978, on the ground that the shop in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was, however, dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Act vide judgment dated 8th September, 1978. He has now come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the tenant-petitioner has contended that the authorities below have placed reliance on the reports of the experts. The opinions of the experts produced by the rival parties are generally biased opinions and should not be relied on. He further submits that he had moved an application before the Rent Controller as also before the Appellate Authority for inspection of the shop or for issuance of a commission to examine the condition of the shop but these applications were wrongly turned down. He further contends that the mere fact that a part of the superstructure above the shop has fallen down or there are some minor cracks in the walls of the shop was, by itself, no ground for holding that the shop was unsafe and unfit for human habitation, particularly when the superstructure, which has fallen down partly did not form part of the tenancy.

(3.) THE respondents averred in the petition that they wanted to reconstruct the building but could not do so until and unless the tenant vacated the shop. It is now well settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sardarni Sampuran Kaur v. Sant Singh, 1983 PLR 449 that section 13 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act, visualises the reconstruction of the building either at the behest of the Government or other authority or in the event of its being rendered unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The provision does not look at the matter in a narrower legalistic term of the individual rights of the tenants and the landlords but on the larger social purpose of not obstructing urban renewal and remodelling and reconstruction of structures either for their betterment at the instance of the public authority or where they have outlived their usefulness and become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It has been further held in Sampuran Kaur's case (supra) that if the substantial part of the integrated larger building has become unsafe and for human habitation, the tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof under section 13 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act despite the fact that the particular portion in his occupation may not be so. An earlier judgment of this Court in Parkash Chand v. Jagdish Rai (C.R. No. 691/1973, decided on 9th January, 1975), as extract of which is reported in Short Note No. 11 in 1975 Rent Control Journal it was held that in order to judge the safety or fitness of the shop on the ground floor for human habitation, the state of the superstructure above it, cannot be ignored. In the present case ft is undisputed that the second storey above the shop has almost fallen down. This is likely to have an impact on the shop also Furthermore, there is a finding of both the courts below that the walls of the shop have developed cracks and some bricks have also gone out of plump, and the shop in question is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. I find no ground to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities below.