Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1244 (PNJ)

Rakha Ram v. Jamna Devi

2002-11-20

HEMANT GUPTA

body2002
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Present revision petition is by the tenant against the order passed by the authorities in the application under Sections 10/12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for carrying out necessary repairs on account of failure of landlord to carry out such repairs. 2. Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises in the year 1964, The tenant filed the present application under Sections 10/12 of the Act in April, 1981 which has been dismissed by both the Courts below holding that the building is in dilapidated condition and cannot ordered to be repaired as it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 3. Division Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh v. Hari Ram, 1982(2) Rent Law Reporter 463 has held that right of tenant to seek ejectment cannot be defeated by the tenant on his own or by moving an application under Section 12 of the Act even if the landlord has not come to the Court earlier seeking the eviction under Section 13 of the Act. Right vested in the landlord cannot be defeated or wiped out by order under Section 12 of the Act at the instance of the tenant. 4. Both the parties have produced respective building experts. The tenant has produced AW1 Chhibu Ram whereas the landlord has produced RW1 Kher Singh. As per the expert report produced by the tenant the building requires repairs and no major alterations. However, on the other hand, expert produced by the landlord has stated that the walls shown in Ex.R1 is in a dilapidated condition and has bent down and can fall at any time. The roof of the portion shows in violet colour are also in dilapidated condition. These roofs are made of reeds battens and bamboosT He further reported that if one goes over the roof the same trembles and cannot bear the weight of a man. It is also stated that the rainy water goes inside through the fallen portion of the roof and there is no arrangement for draining it out. The wall shown in blue colour is stated to be out of plumb and the building cannot be repaired and is about to fall. It is also stated that the rainy water goes inside through the fallen portion of the roof and there is no arrangement for draining it out. The wall shown in blue colour is stated to be out of plumb and the building cannot be repaired and is about to fall. The expert produced by the landlord has concluded that the tenant is not entitled to get the roof repaired as substantial portion of roof has fallen and this has given ground of ejectment to the landlord. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Chandu Lal v. Har Lal, (1966)68 P.L.R 36 (Short note), to contend that replacement of roof is part of the repair which is required to be carried out by the landlord and such order can be passed under Section 12 of the Act. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has relied upon Jethu Mal v. Pandit Gita Ram, (1985-1)87 P.L.R. 404 to contend that over all condition of the building is to be examined on the facts of the case. The replacement of the roof cannot be called as repair falling within the scope of Section 12 of the Act. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that the appellate authority has rightly relied upon the report of RW1 Kher Singh who has given in detail the condition of the walls and roofs. As per the report of the expert, walls are out of plumb. The roofs are made of sarkandas and with different kind of karrees and bamboos which are in dilapidated condition. The building of such nature cannot be ordered to be repaired by the authorities under the Act. 8. The repairs contemplated under the Act are those repairs which are required to be occasioned by normal wear and tear of the building. Where the building is of such a nature which requires extensive repairs so as practically amounts to reconstruction of the building, the same cannot be ordered under Section 10 or 12 of the Act. 8. The repairs contemplated under the Act are those repairs which are required to be occasioned by normal wear and tear of the building. Where the building is of such a nature which requires extensive repairs so as practically amounts to reconstruction of the building, the same cannot be ordered under Section 10 or 12 of the Act. The facts of each of the case are required to be examined as to whether the repairs sought by the tenant are such which are necessitated as part of normal wear and tear or are such which is either on account of aging of the building or on account of neglect of the landlord in maintaining the building. It cannot be disputed that every building has its own life which is dependent upon vagaries of nature, kind of construction, natural use etc. Therefore, facts of each case are required to be examined. 9. Both the Courts have appreciated the fact and taken a view that roof cannot be re paired, keeping in view the entire nature of the building, therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.