RAM LAL Vs. RAJINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.10.1979 passed by the appellate authority, Amritsar under section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'). An appeal filed by Smt. Rajinder Kaur landlord respondent against the judgment dated 28.10.1978 of the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, was allowed and the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner has been ordered on the ground that the premises in dispute is unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as also the evidence brought on the record before the learned Rent Controller. The respondent had earlier filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner, inter-alia, on the ground that the shop bearing Khana Shamari No. 988/11 (previous) 952/I1-7 (present), situated in Chowk Passain, Amritsar, which is the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. A certified copy of this application is Ex. P.W. 5/1. The parties had effected a compromise on 26.2.1976 whereby it was agreed that the original rent of the shop which was Rs. 12/- per month should be enhanced to Rs. 15/- per month. It is not in dispute that in view of this compromise, the ejectment application was dismissed.

(3.) THE instant application for ejectment of the petitioner was filed by the respondent on 20.7.1976. The grounds that the premises in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that there is a danger of its being collapsed was taken. These grounds did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller, who dismissed the ejectment application vide his order dated 28.10.1978. The appeal filed by the respondent, however, succeeded and this is how the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fact of the earlier compromise effected between the parties by which the rate of rent was enhanced about 5 months before the filing of the instant ejectment application bars the adjudication of the question of premises begin unsafe and unfit for human habitation as it was raised earlier also. This ground, however, could not be seriously pursued in view of the provisions of section 14 of the Act which lay down that the Controller shall summarily reject an application under sub section (2) or under sub-section (3) of section 13, which raised substantially the issues as have been finally decided in the former proceedings under the Act. It goes without dispute that the ground raised in the earlier ejectment application to the effect that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was not finally decided in the former proceedings. Therefore, the same could be urged in the instant application. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the respondent did not herself appear in the witness box. Her husband Puran Singh A.W. 1 appeared on her behalf. This, in my view, does not detract from the merits of the case of the respondent. It had to be found on the basis of the material brought on the record whether the premises in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Shri Harbans Singh A.W. 4 who is a retired Civil Engineer appeared in the witness box and proved his report Ex. A.W. 4/1 after inspecting the building in dispute, which is to the effect that while the shop in dispute is on the ground floor the building itself is a three storeyed one. The condition of the entire building is most unsatisfactory. It is over 200 years old. Every part of the building is in a very bad unsound and dilapidated condition. It has partly fallen down and it partly in a dangerous condition. The first and the second floors of the building occupied by Tara Singh tenant have already been got vacated under the orders of the Court. The shop in dispute on the ground floor is also very badly damaged. The brick-work of the walls is decayed and worn out, theme plaster has fallen down due to dampness and there are several cracks in the walls, the brick-work of the stairs is also cracked and broken, the wooden beam and joints and wooden planks of the roof are decayed, and worn out and eaten away due to heavy attack of white ants and worms. The roof is very weak, bent and sagged down. The oral evidence of A.W. 3 along with the statement of Puran Singh A.W. 1 supports the reports of the expert. A.W. 2 proved on the record the photographs Exs.A.1/1, A.2/1 and A.3/1 which show that a part of the building on the first and second floors has already fallen down.