PRITAM SINGH Vs. OM PARKASH ADYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's Civil revision under section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act) and it has been directed against the judgment dated 31.1.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana who reversed the judgment dated 5.11.1979 passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana ordering ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Pritam Singh landlord filed an ejectment application under section 13 of the Act for seeking eviction of his tenant Om Parkash from the demised shop forming part of property unit No. B-II-1755/1755 (new B-VI-407 (old), described in the head note and para No. 1 of the ejectment petition and shown red in the site plan Ex.PW.6/A and AW4/2 and yellow in AW.7/2. The shop in dispute was stated to have been previously owned by Vidya Parkash who let it out to Om Parkash tenant with effect from 1.11.1964 on the basis of the Rent Note executed on 29.10.1964 at the monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. Vidya Parkash sold the property including the demised shop to Pritam Singh landlord-respondent and his brother Gurkirpal Singh vide sale deed dated 12.11.1969. Pritam Singh landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant from the tenanted shop on the ground of having not paid the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month with effect from 1.10.1973 and he having illegally replaced the rotten wooden beam by an iron girder on the front side of the shop without the consent of the landlord-respondent and the demised shop being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Gurkirpal Singh was stated to have applied to the Municipal Corporation for reconstruction of the portion of the building which fell to his share in partition proceedings as the same was stated to be in dilapidated condition and he having reconstructed his share of the building on the basis of the building plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. Pritam Singh, landlord stated to have requested the tenant to vacate the demised shop so that it could be reconstructed by him, but he has refused to do so. Thus the ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent; that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenant has committed such acts which are like to impair the value or utility of the demised premises.

(3.) Notice of the petition was given to the tenant who filed reply and denied the allegations of the Landlord. According to the respondent that building was perfectly in safe and sound condition. He denied having replaced any wooden beams in front of the shop with iron girders and according to him it was already in existence when he took the shop on rent from its original owner Shri Vidya Parkash in the year 1964. The tenant also tendered arrears of rent along with interest and costs.