PARMESHWARI DASS Vs. KANWAR BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has failed both before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority to obtain eviction of the respondents from the demised shop on the ground that the same is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that he in good faith requires it for reconstruction.

(2.) The Appellate Authority finds, and its findings are not questioned in this revision application, that during the pendency of the eviction application the roof of the front room of the demised shop came down, but the tenants put a new roof immediately and that some of the rafters of the back room are weevil eaten. The Appellate Authority is, however, of the opinion that the roof can be repaired by the replacement of those battens easily, and that a well of the demised shop needs plastering, which repairs can be carried out without much difficulty. There is a partition wall between the demised shop and the other property of the applicant and that wall is in a bad condition, but the Appellate Authority has remarked that the applicant cannot be permitted by his own act so as to allow the partition wall to go in disrepair to give him a ground for eviction of the respondents on the ground as claimed by him. The learned counsel for the applicant urges that when the eviction application was made, the roof of the front room was in a dilapidated condition and the roof of the back room and the wall were also in similar condition, but the learned counsel for the respondents refers to Chandu Lal v. Har Lal, Civil Revision No. 801 of 1965, decided on January 4, 1966, in which Grover, J. held that replacement of a roof is just repairs and not structural alteration. So that if a tenant has carried out repairs and because of those repairs the demised property can no longer be described as unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the landlord cannot possibly succeed. That is exactly what appears to have happened in this case. The roof was replaced by the tenants during the pendency of the eviction application, the few weevil eaten battens of the back room can be replaced and the wall needing plastering can be plastered. All these matters are no more than repairs. The landlord cannot be permitted to allow his own partition wall to crumble so as to have a ground like this for the eviction of the tenants. The revision application fails and is dismissed with costs, counsel's fee being Rs. 30.