BANSI LAL Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by the both the authorities below.

(2.) VIDE order dated 6.8.1984, I referred to the case to a larger Bench on the short point as to whether residential building could be vacated or not for using the same by registered medical practitioner for his profession in view of the judgment of this Court in Tikka Lal v. Kamla Rani 19969 PLR 113. During the pendency of this reference, Civil Misc. No. 1652-C-II of 1986 was filed on behalf of the landlord respondent in which it was asserted that during the pendency of the present eviction petition in this Court, the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, though this ground had not been taken in the ejectment application and was taken for the first time in this miscellaneous application. The landlord had also filed a separate ejectment petition on this ground before the Rent Controller. Thus vide order dated 22.7.1986, this Bench allowed the said Civil Miscellaneous application and entertained the fresh ground of ejectment. The said application was sent to the Rent Controller to receive evidence of the parties and submit his report to the Court direct. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of both the parties and discussing the same in detail, sent his report dated 13.12.1986. He concluded that :-

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month. I agree,