SAT DEV Vs. SANJEEV GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction has been ordered by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord-respondent sought the ejectment of his tenant Sat Dev from the demised premises primarily on the ground that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petition was contested mainly on the ground that in the previous ejectment application by the landlord, this very ground was taken and the same was dismissed on 25.4.1980. That being so, the present petition was barred u/s 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The learned Rent Controller found that the present ejectment application was not barred u/s 14 of the Act, as the earlier application for ejectment was never decided in merits. It was further found that from the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the building in dispute was very old and bore cracks; that a part of the building had already fallen, and, consequently, the premises in dispute were in a dangerous condition and could crumble any time. Therefore, the premises in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, having outlived its life, it was observed. With this finding, the order of the eviction was passed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, and observed that "it is proved from the evidence of Sachdev Gupta, a retired Executive Engineer, that the building in dispute is very old and the upper storey of one of the rooms had disappeared." It was further found that a part of the building a portion of which was the subject-matter of the present litigation, was in the tenancy of Ram Dayal who was ejected on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, which ground was upheld even by the High Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. In the earlier ejectment application, the above-mentioned ground was never decided by Rent Controller. Moreover, whether the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation is a question to be decided on facts and circumstances of the case. It was observed by this Court in Charan Dass v. Shri Vishaw Mittar, 1981(1) RCR 152 : 1981(1) RLR 205 that where the previous application on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was rejected, subsequent application on the same ground, but on subsequent facts, was not barred.