Bishan Dass vs Smt. Phullan Rani and Another

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The Petitioner it a tenant in a shop situate in Grain Market (Mandi Harding Ganj), Kapurthala, which is owned by the Respondents Admittedly, the Petitioner is in occupation of the shop at a monthly rent of Rs 18/- vide rent note dated 8-10-1956 which was executed by the Petitioner in favour of Hari Chand, the previous owner of the shop The shop was purchased by the Respondents on 29th February, 1964. On an application filed by the Respondents u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the Petitioner on 28th February, 1978, on the ground that the shop in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Rent Controller which was, however, dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Act vide judgment dated 8th September, 1978. He has now come up in revision before this Court.

Learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioner has contended that the authorities below have placed reliance on the reports of the experts. The opinions of the experts produced by the rival parties are generally biased opinions and should not be relied on. He further submits that he had moved an application before the Rent Controller as also before the Appellate Authority for inspection of the shop or for issuance of a commission to examine the condition of the shop but these applications were wrongly turned down. He further contends that the mere fact that a part of the super-structure above the shop has fallen down or there are some minor cracks in the walls of the shop, was by itself, no ground for holding that the shop was unsafe for haman habitation parti ularly when the super structure, which has fallen down partly, did not form part of the tenancy.

3 Having applied my mind to these contentions, I am of the view that there is no merit in the same. The Respondents produced Shri Walaiti Ram, a retired Executive Engineer, and Shri Kailash Nath, another retired Engineer, as their expert witnesses. The Petitioner, on the other hand, produced Harbans Singh, Civil Engineer, as his expert witness. All the three expert witnesses have concurred on the following facts: -

(i) that the shop in dispute was, in fact, a two-storeyed building; a part of the roof of the chobara on the shop has already fallen down and the remaining part is in a dilapidated condition;

(ii) the shop was nearly 65 years old when the expert witnesses appeared before the Rent Controller in the years 1977-78; there is a foundation stone which discloses that the market in which the shop is situated was constructed in the year 1913.

Both the expert witnesses appearing for the Respondents/land-lord have further deposed that the building, of which the shop in dispute is-a part, has outlived its life; the wood used in the roof was in a rotten condition; there were cracks in the walls of the shop and there was also damoness in the Northern wall; a Pipal tree had grown in one of the walls; 2/3rd part of the upper storey had already fallen down and the walls were of mud mortar. Shri Harbans Singh, the expert of the Petitioner, however, stated that the wall was constructed with lime mortar. In view of the above mentioned on the record, the autho-rities below were very well in a position to ascertain the condition of the building. Their decision in not issuing a commission for examination of the shop or to inspect the shop, does not suffer from any infirmity.

The Respondents averred in the petition that they wanted to reconstruct the building but could not do so until and unless the tenant vacated the shop. It is now well settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sardarni Sampuran Kaur v. Sant Singh (1983) 85 P. L R. 449 that Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act visualites the reconstruction of the building either at the behest of the Government or other authority or in the event of its being rendered unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The provision does not look at the matter in a narrower legalistic term of the individual rights of the tenants and the landlords but on the larger social purpose of not obstructing urban renewal and remodelling and reconstruction of structures either for their betterment at the instance of the public authority or where they have outlived their usefulness and become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It has been further held in Sampuran Kaur''s case (supra) 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 Act despite the fact that the particular portion in his occupation may not be so. An earlier judgment of this Court in Parkash Chand v. Jagdish Rai 1975 R. C. J. 11 (S. N.) (C R. No. 691/1973, decided on 9th January, 1975), an extract of which is reported in Short Note No. 11 in 1975 Rent Control Journal it was held that in order to judge the safety or fitness of the shop on the ground floor for human habitation, the state of the super-structure above it, cannot be ignored. In the present case it is undisputed that the second storey above the shop has almost fallen down. This is likely to have an impact on the shop also. Furthermore, there is a finding of both the courts below that the walls of the shop have developed cracks and some bricks have also gone out of plump, and the shop in question is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. I find no ground to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities below.

This petition is, consequently, dismissed with no order as to costs. The tenant Petitioner is, however, allowed three months'' time to vacate the demised premises and hand over its vacant possession to the Respondents on the condition that he shall pay the entire arrears of rent if any including the rent for the next three months in advance to the Respondents within one month from today failing which the Respondents shall be entitled to carry out execution forthwith and eject the Petitioner from the shop.