BHAGAT RAM Vs. BAIJ NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the tenant-petitioner is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.1979 passed by learned Appellate authority, Jalandhar, under Section 15(3) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act'), whereby an order of ejectment from the shop in dispute passed against him by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed and his appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the shop in dispute has became unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is more than 100 years old. It is in a dilapidated condition. The roof its back room has fallen and the other roof is in a dangerous condition and he intends to reconstruct the whole building after demolishing the same. It is necessary to mention that a few days prior to the aforesaid application the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Act praying for issuance of a direction to the respondent to make necessary repairs and to replace the roof of the back room of the shop in dispute. Both these applications were tried together by the learned Rent Controller. He reached at a finding that the building of which the shop in dispute is a part is an old structure which is dilapidated of which the shop in shop in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and, therefore, accepted the application of the respondent, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner and dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act vide his judgment dated 20.11.1978. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority vide judgment under revision. This is now the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) NOW coming to the merits of the case, it has been concurrently found by the authorities below that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The first room of the shop is being used by the petitioner for milk vending business. A Local Commissioner was appointed who reported that this room is in safe condition. On an inspection of the second room, which is a part of the tenancy he reported that its roof was unsafe and in a dilapidated condition. As the top of this roof there were two big holes. In addition there were cracks in the roof and one of them was major. There were other cracks also. Four wooden rafters had cracked and they were supported by other wooden rafters. There were three other rafters which were unsafe and cracked. The wooden planks were broken and cracked. The roof could collapse at any time. In this room support of small bricks given to the roof was not sufficient, and even the iron girder was of no help. the walls of this room on the West and North sides are cement plastered. These ae old and built of old type material, i.e. small bricks and mud. On the eastern side of this room there was a pucca arch which serves as partition between this room and the adjoining shop. The northern wall is made of Nanakshahi bricks and mud plaster. The wall has dampness and the mud plaster has fallen at 3/4 places. The Local Commissioner also pointed out that the contiguous part of the building of which the shop is a part but which is not under the tenancy of the petitioner is also in a dilapidated condition. There are some wooden rafters which have been placed for giving support to other rafters which have given way. There are major holes in this roof. Even the petitioner admitted that a wooden pillar had been fixed to support the roof of the back room as some ball had given way. He admitted that the roof of the adjoining room on the back of the shop has fallen.