PREM NATH Vs. JAGDISH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS fact leading to this revision petition are that the present respondent Jagdish Rai (who died during the pendency of this revision petition and whose legal representative, Bipin Kupar was brought on the record) had filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the present petitioner from a shop situated in Bhedaur. According to the allegations in the petition, the petitioner was a tenant in the shop in dispute since 23rd March, 1971 on a yearly rental of Rs. 700/-. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on various grounds but the only ground that servives for adjudication in this revision petition is that the shop in dispute and the build up portion over it is in dilapidated condition and is unfit for human habitation and that he also requires the shop in dispute for construction a staircase for going on the roof of the shop as the stair-case which was earlier being used for that purpose had fallen to the share of his brother Kulwant Rai. The tenant-petitioner contested the ejectment petition and denied the allegations of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller held that the defects in the building were repairable and the shop on the ground floor had not been shown to be in any way unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The ejectment application was accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal which was heared by learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, who held that the building of which the shop was a part was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the landlord required the same bonafide for its reconstruction. He accordingly accepted the appeal and ordered ejectment of the tenant. The tenant has challenged that order by means of this revision petition.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding further it may be mentioned here that earlier there was a conflict between some judgments rendered by this Court. One view was that unless the portion demised to the tenant was itself unsafe and unfit for human habitation, he could not be ejected therefrom even though a substantial part of the integrated larger building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The other view was that where a larger building had become substantially unsafe or unfit for human habitation then the landlord had the right to get the whole of it including the demised premises vacated. This controversy was set at rest by a D.B. judgment of this court reported as Sardarni Sampuran Kaur and another v. Sant Singh and another, 1983 P.L.R. 449. The following question was referred to the Division Bench :-

(3.) HOWEVER , the main question that is to be determined is whether substantial part of the integrated building has become unsafe and unfit for habitation or not. There is no doubt upon the point that the whole building is an old one. On the first floor there are two chaubaras. One will be referred to as the front chaubara and the other one as hind chaubara. The petitioner has stated on oath that the roof of the hind chaubara had fallen during rains preceding the filing of the ejectment application. The tenant does not dispute the fact that the roof of the hind chaubara has fallen. In the witness-box the tenant has stated that the roof of the hind chaubara was removed by the landlord and Amar Nath (A.W. 2) about three years earlier in order to put pressure upon him to vacate the shop in dispute. In the written statement also this plea is taken in the alternative. It was pleaded that the landlord had demolished one of the chaubara mala fide in order to make a ground for ejectment. It was further stated that even if it was admitted that one of the chaubaras had fallen down due to heavy rain then it was due to deliberate omission on the part of the landlord as he did not repair that chaubara for sufficient long time. However, in the written statement it was not denied that the roof of the chaubara had fallen down during rains as alleged by the landlord in the ejectment application. A.W. 2 Amar Nath it was suggested that the roof of that chaubara had not fallen and, in fact, it was dismentted by him and the landlord as the former had apprehended that some damage might be caused to his property. From the various plans prepared by the experts examined by the parties and proved on the file it is clear that the property of Amar Nath (A.W.) is adjoining the building of the landlord towards east. The question that whether the roof of the hind chaubara had itself fallen or it was dismented by the landlord to prevent damage being caused to the building of Amar Nath is not very material. The fact remains that the roof of that chaubara was about to fall. The front walls of the hind chaubara have also been dismentled in parts as is clear from the report Exhibit R-1 prepared by R.L.4 Sat Dev Gupta, Retired Executive Engineer, examined by the tenant as an expert. This shows that the wall was also not in good condition and, therefore, had to be dismentled by the landlord. The over bridge passage has since fallen as is clear from Civil Misc. No. 4009-CII filed by the landlord. That petition was, in fact, filed by the landlord praying that the tenant be restrained from repairing the said demolition. Photographs have also been produced on the file in this court which depict that passage had fallen from one end. As noticed earlier, that passage was a pacca one. It was good luck of the tenant that the passage did fall as a whole otherwise there was likelihood of the roof of one of the rooms of the shop itself coming down.