DWARKA DASS BHIMSEN Vs. DEEPAK KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners (tenants), are aggrieved of order dtd. 10/4/2015, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby their eviction from the demised premises has been ordered on the ground of premises being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Petitioners are also aggrieved of the judgement dtd. 3/11/2016, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby the petitioners appeal has also been dismissed. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (for short 'Act') was filed by the landlord (respondent in this petition) seeking eviction of the tenants (present petitioners) on the ground that the shop in dispute is unsafe and unfit for human habitation as the same is more than 100 years old and has outlived its life and utility. It was pleaded that earlier Faqir Chand, Om Parkash and Ram Lubhaya were owners of the property. The shop as detailed in the petition was given on rent to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1000.00 per month. It was pleaded that the respondents were in arrears of rent w.e.f., 1/7/2008. A portion of the roof of a shop in the same building, under the tenancy of another tenant-Inderjit is claimed to have fallen down. Batons of the roof elsewhere in the building, and the shop in dispute are claimed to be precariously hanging besides being termite infested, liable to collapse anytime. Walls of the building built with Nanakshahi bricks are stated to have developed cracks and the entire building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is further pleaded that despite request by the petitioner, respondents failed to pay the rent or vacate the demised premises. Hence the petition was filed. Petition was contested by the respondents. Various preliminary objections were taken in the written statement. Averments on merits were controverted. It was pleaded that shop in dispute was rented out by Ram Lubhaya to appellant Dwarka Dass (father of Bhimsen). After death of Dwarka Dass, Bhimsen inherited the tenancy of the said shop. The firm arrayed as tenant has no concern with the tenancy of shop. Ram Lubhaya died in the year 2002 leaving behind his wife Pushpawati as his sole surviving legal heir. Deepak Khanna, it is asserted is only an agent of Pushpawati as he used to collect rent from tenant only on behalf of Pushpawati, being her agent. It is denied that Deepak Khanna is the landlord. Rent of demised premises is claimed to be paid upto March 2009, but respondent has not issued receipt thereof. It is pleaded that the shop in dispute is safe and fit for human habitation. Amended written statement was allowed to be filed on 8/7/2014, substituting the name of Pushpawati with Mayawati. Dismissal of the petition was sought.

(2.) Rejoinder was filed. Following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that both the learned Courts below have grossly erred in concluding that the premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation on the ground that the wooden planks of the roof have fallen and some of the batons are curving downwards and are not in proper shape. Moreover, the building expert examined by the petitioner has categorically opined that the building is fit and safe for human habitation. His report has been wrongly ignored. It is further submitted that ejectment of another tenant in a shop which forms the part of the building by itself, cannot be a ground for ejectment of the present petitioner. Moreover, reliance by the learned Rent Controller on a report by a Building Expert in proceedings pertaining to the other tenant, who has not been examined in this case, could not be taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Piara Lal Vs. Kewal Krishan Chopra, 1988(3) SCC 51 and judgements of this Court in Mulakh Raj and another Vs. Jugraj Singh, 2008(1) R.C.R (Civil) 50 and Bharat Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar 2003(2) PLR 785. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed and judgments passed by the learned Courts below, be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record with his assistance. Both the learned Courts below have directed ejectment of the petitioner (tenant) from the demised premises on the ground of the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. I have perused report Ex.A-4 by Raminderjit Singh Bawa, Building Expert, who has deposed as AW-2. Premises were inspected in the presence of the parties as reflected in the attendance sheet Ex.A-2. It is specifically mentioned that shop no.4, in possession of the present petitioner was unsafe, unhealthy and unfit for human habitation. It is stated that a portion of the roof stands demolished on the north-east corner of the backside portion of the shop as reflected in photographs P-9 and P-10. Wooden planks (Balas) were destroyed (eaten) by white ants as reflected in photographs P- 11 and P-12. It is further noticed that the shop in question consists of three portions. One of the arches in between the three portions is flailing. The whole load of the wall came towards the said arch, which could collapse at any time, leading to a major accident and loss of human lives, as reflected in photograph P-16. The shop which is stated to an integral part of the entire building could not be constructed individually. AW-2, has also detailed the condition of the rear side, first floor and second floor of the building in a graphic manner duly supported by specific photographs, which are available on record.