INDER DASS Vs. HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant-petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment dated 15.11.1986, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (for short 'the Act') whereby his eviction from the shop in dispute has been ordered.

(2.) HEM Raj and three others, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, are the owners and landlords of the shop bearing Municipal No. B-IV/542, Bazar Pansarian, Ludhiana, which is a double storeyed building. The shop on the ground floor was let out to Kishan Chand as tenant, the rent being Rs. 34.37. On the death of Kishan Chand, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 9 being his heirs inherited the tenancy rights of the shop. The landlords filed an application under Section 13 of the Act, on 13.5.1981 in the Court of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, for ejectment of the said tenants on two grounds namely, non-payment of rent and the shop had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The arrears of rent having been tendered on the first date of hearing, the only ground which survived for consideration was the second one. It was alleged in the application that the chaubara over the shop in dispute had already fallen down and the roof of the shop is in extremely dangerous condition and can give way at any time. The building of the shop is more than 80 years old and had out lived its age. It is a third class construction. The walls bear cracks. The property is in a very bad condition and it can collapse at any time. The chaubara over the shop which had fallen down as well as the shop on the ground floor were constructed at the same time. The application was contested by the tenants and in their written reply a legal plea was taken to the effect that an earlier ejectment application on a similar ground i.e. the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation had been dismissed by the Rent Controller on 30.10.1970 and the appeal of the landlords had also failed. Therefore, the second application on the same ground is not maintainable and is barred by the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The application was alleged to be mala fide. It was pleaded that the landlords were out to evict the tenants by hook or crook. They disputed that the chaubara over the shop had already fallen or that the shop in dispute is in extremely dangerous condition or could give way at any time. The plea that the building was more than 80 years old and had outlived its utility was also refuted. It was alleged that in order to damage the property in possession of the tenant, the landlords had demolished the roof on the room of the first floor and threw its malba (debris) of the roof of the first floor, on the roof of the shop. They had asked the landlords not to demolish the building illegalily and not to throw the malba on the roof of the first floor, on the roof of the shop. They, however, refused to accede to the request of the tenants. They, therefore, reported the matter to the police on 16.5.1981 regarding the illegal activities of the landlords. It is further stated that as a result of the report lodged by them with the police, the landlords removed the malba from the roof of the shop on police intervention. It was thus alleged that the fall of the roof of room on the first floor was a deliberate act of the landlords. It was asserted that the roof of the shop made of girders, wooden battens, tiles and phattas and, therefore, the shop is fit for human habitation. It may be noted here that on an application filed by the landlords, the learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 15.5.1981, appointed Shri Vipin Kumar Advocate, as Local Commissioner and directed him to go to the spot and submit a detailed report regarding position of the construction at the spot. He submitted his report dated 18.5.1981 Exhibit A-2/A to which a detailed reference shall be made in later part of the judgment.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through their pleadings and the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by them on the record of the learned Rent Controller. Having given my thoughtful consideration to their submissions, I am of the view that the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority is unexceptionable and is, therefore, to be maintained.