SHRIMATI RAJ KUMARI Vs. SHRI SHADI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a landlord's revision petition against the decision of the appellate authority confirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her application for the eviction of the tenant.

(2.) SHRIMATI Raj Kumari owns the house in dispute which is situate in Ludhina City. She had given its ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/ - to Shadi Lal, the first floor being occupied by herself. The landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) on a number of grounds but we are, in the present revision petition, concerned with only one of them, namely, that the entire building was in a dangerous condition and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller, after discussing the evidence produced in the case came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to establish that ground. He was of the view that the building was repairable and could be set right. The ejectment application was consequently, dismissed.

(3.) THE first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under the provisions of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, all that was necessary for the landlord to prove was that the tenanted premises had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and if that was done, the tenant was liable to eviction on that ground. It was not further obligatory for the landlord to allege and establish that he required the same for rebuilding it. In that connection, he referred to a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Sant Ram v. Mekhu Lal, (1968)70 P.L.R. 195 where it was held that it was not necessary for a landlord, when applying or being put in possession of his building or rented land under section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, to plead and establish that he required the same in order to carry out any building work.