MADAN LAL ALIAS GOGA Vs. MOHINDERPAL SINGH VIRDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHINDER Pal Singh Virdi, landlord, had filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of Dhani Ram, respondent No. 3 and his two sons Madan Lal alias Goga and Balbir Kumar alias Billu, respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively, from two Kotharies and a verandah forming part of Haveli Dhanna Singh, detailed and described in the head note of the application.

(2.) IT was stated in the application that demised premises formed a part of big Haveli known as Haveli Dhanna Singh, which was owned by Jaswant Singh, father of the landlord. Respondent No. 3 Dhani Ram, father of respondents No. 1 and 2 was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 24/-. Jaswant Singh father of the landlord died on 2.8.1995 and thereafter his son Mohinderpal Singh, respondent/applicant was paid rent and, therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant was formulated between the respondent/applicant and the petitioners to the present revision petitions as tenants. It was pleaded in the rent petition before learned Rent Controller that the demised premises in possession of the tenant consist of kotharies, verandah, courtyard and passage, which are lying in dilapidated condition as the Haveli being more than 100 years old has outlived its utility and age. It was further pleaded that the walls had developed cracks. The mortar has outlived its age. Roof of the kotharies is made up of sirki kannas. The wooden material is infested with termite and has become shallow. The tenanted premises has become irreparable. Heavy rains in 1995 have made the tenanted premises unfit for human use and occupation. It was further averred that the neighbourers have made complaints to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, that there is an apprehension of falling down of the kotharies and it endanger human life. Therefore, the main ground on which eviction was sought was that the building has become unfit for human habitation. The second ground for eviction of tenant was that the tenant had not paid arrears of rent since April 1990. Notice of the application was issued. Petitioners-tenants filed reply and took preliminary objection.

(3.) REPLICATION was also filed. Thereafter, learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, had framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the premises in dispute have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA 2. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 3. Whether the demised premises have not been correctly described in the petition, if so, its effect ? OPR 4. Relief.