BHAGWAN DASS Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21.8.1979 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) whereby an appeal filed by the tenant-respondents against the order of ejectment of the Rent Controller was accepted and the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act filed by the landlord petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller alleging that the respondent are tenants under him in shop bearing House No. B III 115 situated at Nabha. He alleged inter alia that they are liable to ejectment therefrom on the ground that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habititation and he requires the same for it reconstruction. This ground prevailed with the learned Rent Controller who held that it was established by evidence on the record that the shop is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Therefore, vide his judgment dated 17.12.1975 he ordered ejectment of the respondents from the shop in dispute. On appeal filed by the respondents, however, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding returned by the Rent Controller and held that the shop is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The appeal was allowed, order of ejectment against the respondents set aside and the application of the petitioner was dismissed. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court through the present civil revision.

(3.) THE learned Appellate Authority has held that no doubt the first floor i.e. the Chobara above the shop has since fallen down, but has proceeded to observe that by removal of debris of the first floor danger to the safety of the structure of the shop has diminished and the structure of the shop can be kept intact with satisfactory repairs from time to time. This approach of the learned Appellate Authority, in my view, is not correct. The petitioner cannot reconstruct the Chobara on the first floor of the shop with the existing condition of its walls and roofs of the shops. In Sardarni Sampuran Kaur and another v. Sant Singh and another, AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 245, a Division Bench of this Court has held that Section 13(2)(a)(iii) is not confined only to cases of buildings which are unsafe and unfit for human habitation. An identical right of ejectment is given therein to the landlord where he is to carry out any building work at the instance of the Govt. or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme. In a way, the aforesaid provision has in view the concept of urban renewal as its underlying purpose. It is plain that in case any improvement or development scheme requires a rebuilding or reconstruction or even substantial alteration of the existing structure then the landlord is forthwith entitled to eject his tenants therefrom. In these cases, the building need not satisfy the test of being unsafe and unfit for human habitation.