ISHAR DASS Vs. SADHU RAM HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the landlord whose eviction application has failed before the Rent Controller and the appellate authority.

(2.) The only grounds that are raised are two :

(3.) The first ground is not available to the applicant because he has not said what he wanted to do with the property; apart from this the finding of fact is that the demised property has not been found to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. So this ground does not succeed. So far as the other ground is concerned, the appellate authority in negativing the claim of the applicant in relation to it relies on Raj Kumar v. Mango Ram,1963 PunLR 181, in which Falshaw, C.J., explained that in section 13(2)(iv) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949), which reads that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct as are a nuisance to the occupiers of buildings in the neighbourhood; the ground of nuisance is not confined to ill feelings and troubles between the tenant and the landlord and that the use of the plural in this provision has been made by the Legislature deliberately and it has to be taken as such, which means that nuisance has to be of such a nature as if felt by the occupiers of the buildings in the neighbourhood and not by an individual person alone. The learned Chief Justice considered the earlier case of Ram Chander v. Kidar Nath, 1954 56 PunLR 18, and observed that that case must be confined to its own facts. In the circumstances even this ground is not available to the applicant.