EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LIMITED Vs. MOHAN LALL DOGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (landlord) sought eviction of the respondent (tenant) on three fold grounds, firstly on the ground of arrears of rent, secondly the building, of which the tenanted premises form part, has been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the premises are required by the landlord bona fide for building/rebuilding, which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on all the counts with the rider that the landlord shall not be entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent in case the rent alongwith interest, costs etc. is paid within the stipulated time. However, while passing the final order, as per relief clause contained in para 19 of the order of eviction dated 01.07.2008, Annexure P -A, which is extracted below, the learned Rent Controller omitted to include one of the grounds of eviction, that is, the building in which the tenanted premises are housed having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation:

(2.) HOWEVER , on a complete and harmonious reading of the aforesaid order of eviction dated 01.07.2008, Annexure P -A, it is manifest that the issues covering all the three grounds of eviction were duly framed and the parties led evidence on the same, whereafter all the three issues, covering the three grounds of eviction, were held in affirmative. Even while passing the final order as per relief clause contained in para 19, the opening words are In view of my findings given on the various issues above -, meaning thereby that the aforesaid omission to include the ground of eviction based on the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation in the final order is a mere omission which appears to be on account of an accidental slip.

(3.) THE controversy giving rise to filing of the present revision petition arose when the has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as there is landlord filed execution petition and the learned Executing Court dismissed the same holding that since eviction of the tenant was not ordered on the ground that the building no specific reference to the same in the final order contained in the relief clause of the eviction order dated 01.07.2008, the tenant could not be evicted from the demised premises. Being aggrieved, the landlord carried the matter in appeal to the learned Appellate Authority, which also concurred with the inference drawn by the learned Rent Controller mainly on the ground that in case the landlord was dissatisfied with exclusion of the ground of eviction relating to the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, he should have either sought modification of the order of eviction or ought to have filed cross objections in the appeal filed by the tenant challenging the said order.