Bhagwan Dass vs Ramji Dass (died) and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos 1296 and 1297 of 1979, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

The landlord Bhagwan Dass sought the ejectment of his three tenants viz., Ramji Dass (since deceased): Bhajan Singh and M/s Rameshwar Dass Rulia Ram from the shops, in dispute, occupied by them individually, inter alia on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller himself inspected the site on October 19, 1978, and recorded his inspection note. According to the said inspection note, the shops, in dispute, had not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and were intact. Accordingly, all the three ejectment applications were dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment applications. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed these three revision petitions in this Court.

Even if the inspection note recorded by the learned Rent Controller be accepted, even then, the tenants are liable to be ejected from the demised premises because it has been found as a fact by the Appellate Authority itself that,

In the present case, the shop, in question, which is in dispute is not proved to be unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Simply because the other part of the building in which some of the shops had fallen down and some were demolished by the Municipal Committee will not mean that the Respondent should be ejected from the premises on rent with him....

This view taken by the Appellate Authority appears to be based upon an earlier decision of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1711 of 1977 Amar Kath v. Nand Kishore C. R. Petition No. 1711 of 1977, decided on April 18, 1980, which was upset by the Division Bench of this Court in Sardarni Sampran Kaur v. Sant Singh (1983) 85 P. L. R. 449, wherein it was held that if the substantial part of the integrated larger building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof u/s 13(3) (a) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, despite the fact that the particular portion in his occupation may not be so. In view of the said authoritative Division Bench judgment of this Court, no meaningfuly arguments could be raised on behalf of the tenants.

Consequently, all the three revision petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the authorities below are set aside and the eviction orders are passed against the tenants. However, they are allowed three months time to vacate the respective premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are paid within one month from today along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of three months, the premises would be vacated and the vacant possession thereof would be handed over to the landlord and the future rent will be paid regularly monthly, in advance, by the tenth of every month.