Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 852 (PNJ)

Banwari Lal v. Tulsan Devi

2003-05-30

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlords impugning the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority vide which the ejectment application filed by them under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was held to be not maintainable as their earlier ejectment application on the same ground was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.10.1982 the petitioner-landlords filed an ejectment petition against the respondent-tenant for their eviction from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondent-tenant appeared and contested the aforesaid application. She tendered the claimed rent with interest and costs on the first date of hearing. Regarding the second ground, i.e., the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation she submitted that the petitioners- landlords earlier filed an ejectment application on this very ground and the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the said order was upheld up to the High Court. It was further submitted that the instant ejectment application was filed by the petitioners-landlords against the respondent- tenant with an oblique motive to harass her. In the replication, the petitioners-landlords did not controvert the aforesaid fact. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed which are reproduced as under :- "1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 3. Whether the petition is bad for want of scaled plan ? OPD. 4. Whether the respondent is entitled to special costs of Rs. 500/- ? OPD. 5. Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the present petition ? OPD. 6. Whether the petition is not signed by all the petitioners ? If so, its effect ? OPD. 7. Relief." The learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioners- landlords and it was held that the petitioners-landlords will be entitled to renovate the building by re-constructing the same and for that purpose they are entitled to get the demised premises vacated from the respondent-tenant. If so, its effect ? OPD. 7. Relief." The learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioners- landlords and it was held that the petitioners-landlords will be entitled to renovate the building by re-constructing the same and for that purpose they are entitled to get the demised premises vacated from the respondent-tenant. However, it was ordered that the order of ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the demised premises shall be with the condition that they would again hand over the demised premises to the respondent-tenant after re-constructing the building. 3 Against the aforesaid order, the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was accepted and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside while holding that the instant ejectment application filed by the petitioners-landlords was not maintainable in view of the fact that earlier ejectment petition filed by the petitioners-landlords on the same ground was dismissed by the Rent Controller and that order was upheld up to this Court. The instant revision petition has been filed to challenge the above-said order of the Appellate Authority. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in spite of the fact that earlier ejectment application filed by the petitioners-landlords on the same ground was dismissed, even then the petitioners-landlords are not debarred from filing the second ejectment application on the same ground. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sat Dev, sole prop. of M/s. S.D. Hosiery Mills v. Sanjeev Garg, 1990(2) RCR 25 and Ranbir Bhatia v. Kashmiri Lal, 1983(2) RCR 231. 5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, I am unable to accept the solitary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the instant case, the petitioners-landlords have not disclosed in their petition that they had earlier filed an ejectment petition on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller and that order was confirmed up to this Court. Without disclosing this fact, the instant ejectment application was filed by them. Without disclosing this fact, the instant ejectment application was filed by them. In her written statement, the respondent-tenant disclosed this fact which was not refuted by the petitioners-landlords in their replication as well as in their statement, when one of the landlords, Mahabir Parshad, appeared as PW5 before the Rent Controller. 6. In view of the aforesaid factual position, I am of the opinion that the petitioners-landlords are not entitled to maintain a subsequent ejectment application on the same ground where the previous application on the same ground was dismissed. It is not the case of the petitioners-landlords in the ejectment application that after dismissal of their ejectment application at earlier point of time, the condition of the demised premises has further deteriorated subsequently which has rendered the demised premises unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Neither the petitioners-landlords have taken such plea nor have established the same, therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant revision petition filed by petitioners-landlords and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.