OM PARKASH Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Om Parkash is occupying a shop consisting of two rooms on the ground floor and a chobara on the first floor at Morinda in district Ropar as a tenant of the respondent Parkash Chand. The latter applied for ejectment of the former under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inter alia on the ground that the tenancy premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment application on this ground and ordered the eviction of the tenant. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ropar. Against the judgment of the Appellate Authority the instant revision petition has been filed by the tenant.

(2.) IT stands uncontroverted that a large portion of the roof of the chobara fell down on 26th of August, 1976 due to rains. The point for determination is whether in such circumstances the authorities below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the tenancy premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation so as to order eviction of the tenant.

(3.) THE learned petitioner's counsel tried to take support from two judgments of this Court; one in Ved Parkash and another v. Khushi Ram and another (1973 RCR 252), 1973 All India Rent Control Journal 548, and the other in Dharam Pal v. Janki Nath Sharma, (1985(1) RCR 30), 1985(1) C.L.J. (C and Cr.) 62. I find that none of these two judgments is relevant to the present enquiry. In the case of Ved Parkash (supra), it was held that the replacement of a kacha part of the room by a new kacha part amounts to necessary repairs within the meaning and scope of section 12 of the Act and it is not a structural alteration. In the first place this judgment is under Section 12 of the Act and not under Section 13. The scope of these two sections is distinct and separate. Secondly, in the present case the roof of the chobara which has failed was not kacha and so its re;placement cannot be deemed to be necessary repairs of the tenancy premises. In Dharam Pal's case (supra) it was found as a fact that the roof of the tenancy premises had not fallen down but it was only leaking. In such circumstances it was considered a case of repairs and not of the premises having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Thus, these judgments are of no assistance to the petitioner.