KARMI Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 2217 of 1979 and 1590 of 1980. The former has been filed by the tenant against the order of ejectment passed against him by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the premises in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The latter has been filed by the landlord against the orders of the authorities below under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act'), on an application filed by the tenant allowing him to carry out necessary repairs to the same premises at the cost of the landlord and to deduct the amount so spent from the rent due from him to the landlord.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Harnam Singh was the owner and landlord of a house situated at Banga, district Jalandhar and Jagat Singh was a tenant under him in the said house at a monthly rent of Rs. 8/-. Harnam Singh filed an application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of Jagat Singh inter alia on the ground that the building in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller, Nawanshahr before whom this application was made registered the same as Ejectment Application No. 53 of 1977. He, however, ultimately dismissed the same, - vide his order dated 29th July, 1978 by relying on a judgment of this Court in Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram and another, 1964 P.L.R. 503, holding that since the landlord had not specifically pleaded that he required the building for reconstruction, the application on his behalf under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is not maintainable. An appeal filed by the landlord against this order has been allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, - vide judgment dated 27th August, 1979. It has been held that Chuhar Mal's case was overruled in a subsequent judgment of this Court in Lalit Behari v. Sant Lal, 1974 AIR(P&H) 339. Thus the landlord is competent to eject his tenant in case the building is either unfit or unsafe for human habitation without pleading or proving anything more. It further proceeded to hold that it has been established by the landlord that the building in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller, directed ejectment of the tenant from the premises in dispute. Jagat Singh tenant had died in the meantime and his legal representatives including his widow Smt. Karmi were brought on the record. Being aggrieved against the judgment of the learned appellate Authority, they filed Civil Revision No. 2217 of 1979 in this Court.

(3.) Jagat Singh tenant, on the other hand filed an application under Section 12 of the Act before the learned Rent Controller, Nawanshahr which was registered as Ejectment Application No. 57 of 1977. He pleaded that the building required necessary repairs and Harnam Singh landlord had neglected to carry out the repairs to the building. This application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller, - vide order dated 31st January, 1979. He allowed Jagat Singh to raise parda wall and repair the lintels which are alleged to have developed cracks by spending Rs. 100/- which amount he shall be entitled to deduct from the rent due to the landlord. Harnam Singh filed an appeal against this order before the learned Appellate Authority. In spite of the fact that it had already passed an order of ejectment against the tenant from the same building, it proceeded to deal with the appeal as it was brought to its notice that Civil Revision No. 2217 of 1979 against the order of ejectment has already been admitted in this Court and the ejectment of the tenant has been stayed. The learned Appellate Authority observed that it could not be add whether the ejectment order would stand or fall when the aforesaid Civil Revision is ultimately decided. Dealing with the merits of the appeal, it found no force in the same and rejected it, - vide its judgment dated 23rd February, 1980. Harnam Singh landlord being aggrieved against this judgment filed Civil Revision No. 1590 of 1980 in this Court. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of this revision petition, Harnam Singh died on 6th January, 1987 and his legal representatives were brought on the record, - vide order dated November 3, 1987, passed by G.C. Mital, J. The fate of Civil Revision No. 1590 of 1980 would depend on the decision of Civil Revision No. 2217 of 1979. I, therefore, proceed to deal with the latter.