KUSUM KUMAR Vs. PARKASH WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, two Civil Revision Petitions bearing No. 1747 and 1748 of 1981 can conveniently be disposed of together. Both the revisions are directed against two separate orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amloh, but the common judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, dated 23.2.1981. The learned Rent Controller, Amloh, had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner Kusum Kumar under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") but allowed the petition for eviction filed by Smt. Parkash Wati. The appeals filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by one Prabh Dayal. The suit property was purchased by Roshan Lal who had filed a petition for eviction. The sole ground of eviction that survives for consideration is as to whether the property in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not. It had been asserted that the roof of one of the rooms had fallen a few days before the filling of eviction application. The roof of the other room had also about to fall. The petitioner had denied the said ground of eviction and contended that it is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the petitioner, the landlord is residing on the back side of the shop. He has an easy access to the roof. He had deliberately unearthed the roof of the middle room thereby causing a portion of the roof to fall. As per Petitioner, he had since repaired the fallen portion of the roof. Plea had also been taken that the previous owner had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner's mothers.

(3.) The petitioner had also filed an application under section 12 of the Act. The Petitioner's case was that roof of the last portion of the shop requires minor repair as that portion of the roof had fallen during the pendency of the eviction application. Other- wise, the petitioner's case was that shop is safe and fit for human habitation. The respondent-landlady was alleged to have failed to repair the same, he prayed that either the respondent should get it repaired or the petitioner should be allowed to get the shop repaired and adjust the amount spent on repairs towards rent.