Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 762 (PNJ)

Bahadur Chand v. Pritam Sain Jain

2003-05-21

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner-tenant has filed the instant revision petition against the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as the Appellate Authority, Rohtak vide which he has been ordered to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground that the same is in dilapidated condition and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 2. The demised premises is a shop situated at Partap Takies, Rohtak. The said premises is under the tenancy of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 27.50. On 25.7.1985, the respondent-landlord filed the ejectment application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) against the petitioner on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, therefore, the tenant is liable to be ejected on this ground. It was alleged in the ejectment application that the wooden batons of the shop in question have been eaten by moth and white ants and the entire roof which is supported by wooden plank, is in dilapidated condition. The shop in question is old and the water leaks in the batons during rains and has caused extensive damage to the walls. It was also alleged that the respondent-landlord has fixed cross batons for supporting the roof which can collapse at any moment. 3. On the other hand, the petitioner-tenant contested the aforesaid ejectment application by denying all the averments made by the respondent-landlord. However, the petitioner-tenant himself filed an application under Section 12 of the Act for replacement of the roof and raising the level of the shop in question, but his request was disallowed by the learned Rent Controller while holding that the proposed repairs would amount to structural alterations. 4. The learned Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties came to the conclusion that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as the roof of the demised premises has been extensively damaged. Cracks in the walls have occurred in the shop in question and the level of the floor is extremely low. 5. Cracks in the walls have occurred in the shop in question and the level of the floor is extremely low. 5. The aforesaid finding was recorded by the learned Rent Controller while taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties; including the evidence of the expert witness, namely, Shri Ganga Ram Maini, retired Executive Engineer, Rohtak, who was produced by the petitioner as RW1 and after taking into consideration the report (Ex.R1) and the site-plan (Ex.R2) submitted by him. The said finding of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller was confirmed in appeal. The learned Appellate Authority has observed that not only the landlord has established on record that the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and has become unfit for human habitation but the petitioner-tenant himself has also admitted this fact while moving an application under Section 12 of the Act for replacement of the roof of the demised premises. Though the said application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller while holding that the proposed replacement by the tenant would amount to complete alternation of the shop which is not permissible under the law yet at the appellate stage, the tenant withdrew the said application. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly observed that though after withdrawal of the application under Section 12 of the Act, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller on that application regarding the condition of the demised premises, will not be available to the respondent- landlord yet the admission made by the petitioner-tenant in the said application will not be washed away. After considering each and every aspect of the matter and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two-fold submissions; firstly, that the demised premises is repairable and in view of this fact, no ejectment of the petitioner can be ordered; and secondly that after passing of the ejectment order, 16 years have passed, and uptil now the demises premises has not collapsed. Therefore, this fact itself establishes that the demised premises cannot be said to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 8. Therefore, this fact itself establishes that the demised premises cannot be said to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 8. I am unable to accept both the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller while deciding the application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act has clearly held that the demised premises is not repairable and if the proposed repair is to be allowed, then it would amount to complete structural alterations. Though the said application was withdrawn by the petitioner-tenant himself at the appellate stage, yet in view of the facts and circumstance of the case, it cannot be said that the damage occurred to the demised premises is repairable. The second contention of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. The landlord has not to wait for ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation till the demised premises actually fallen down. Both the Courts below have recorded a firm finding of fact to the effect that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. I do not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below nor the learned counsel for the petitioner points out any infirmity, illegality or perversity in that finding of fact. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.