Chuhar Mal vs Balak Ram and Another

S.S. Dulat, J.—Balak Ram and his brother Munshi Ram made an application to the Rent Controller for the eviction of their tenant Chuhar Mai from a shop. In support of the petition the landlords alleged that they wanted to re-erect the shop and that the shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. These allegations were denied by the tenant, and the Rent Controller framed an issue which ran--

(1) Whether the shop in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation?

No issue was framed concerning the landlord''s allegation that they wanted to re-erect the shop possibly because both parties felt that, if the fact of the shop being unsafe and unfit for human habitation was established, an eviction order would follow. The Rent Controller, however, found against the landlords on this issue and dismissed the petition. The landlords appealed and the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and on that conclusion ordered the tenant''s eviction. Chuhar Mai, the tenant, then filed a revision petition in this Court and, although the conclusion of fact could not be disputed, it was urged in support of the petition that in law the eviction order was bad, as here was no finding that the landlords required the shop for rebuilding it. The petition Was heard by Mahajan, J., sitting alone, and the argument presented to him was that under the provisions of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act the landlords had to prove two things--(1) that the premises were unsafe or unfit for human habitation, and (2) that they required them for rebuilding--, and, since there was no finding in favour of the landlords, the eviction order could not stand. In support of this argument reliance was (placed on a decision of this Court, Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath 1963 P.L.R. 528, where Falshaw, J., had taken the view that a landlord seeking a tenant''s eviction on this particular ground had to show not only that the building was unsafe but also that he wished to re-erect it. Mahajan, J., however, felt that the view of Falshaw, J., was not sound and he directed that the revision petition be heard by a larger Bench, and the petition has, therefore, been placed before us.

The controversy is about the meaning of a provision in sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban |Rent Restriction Act, which leaving out the immaterial part, runs thus:

(3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession--

* * * * *

* * * * *

(iii) in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

In Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath 1963 P.L.R. 528, on which the Petitioner''s counsel relies, Falshaw, J., held that this provision should be taken as arranged thus--

A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession--

in the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work;

(a) at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme, or

(b) if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

The learned Judge so held because he found that a very similar provision in the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, was arranged in that particular manner, and he also felt that the intention of the Legislature was that a landlord should be entitled to require the premises to be vacated if, in fact, he wanted to re-erect them either because he was so required to do by a competent authority or because the premises were no longer safe or fit for human habitation. This strikes me as an entirely reasonable view. Mahajan, J., thought it unreasonable for two reasons. One was that the provision relates not only to a building but also to rented land and in the case of rented land there could never be any question of its becoming unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It seems to me, however, that this objection does not apply to the arrangement suggested by Falshaw, J., and Mahajan, J., in his referring order does not lay much emphasis on it. The second and main objection, which weighed with Mahajan, J., was this that there can be a landlord who has not the means to rebuild the premises but even such a landlord is under a liability to ensure the tenant''s safety and should, therefore, be in a position to get the premises vacated, so that the tenant may not suffer damage by collapse of the building and possibly held the landlord responsible. What the reasoning implies is that the Legislature intended to make this provision in order to secure the landlord against any claim by a tenant arising out of any damage to the tenant or his property due to the unsafe condition of the premises. This seems to me a bit farfetched. The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, was enacted in the context of shortage of urban accommodation, both residential and commercial, and it seems therefore reasonable to think that what the Legislature intended was that a landlord, who wants to rebuild the premises either because he has been required to do so or because the premises are unsafe, may be allowed to obtain vacant possession from the tenant, and, similarly in the case of rented land, he may be entitled to take possession in case he has been required to build on the land.

On behalf of the landlords it is contended that Section 13 of the East, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is not arranged by the Legislature in the manner suggested by Falshaw, J., in Panna Lal''s case, nor of course in the manner adopted in the Delhi and Ajmer Merwara Rent Control Act, 1947, and it is therefore not (permissible to foist that particular arrangement on the arrangement considered proper by the Legislature itself, the submission in their result being that, as the provision stands, the fact, that premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation, is an independent ground for the tenant''s eviction. The result of such an interpretation would be that a landlord would be entitled to have a tenant evicted and yet allow the premises to fall down without ever intending to rebuild them. I very much doubt if such a result was ever intended by the Legislature. It is true that it may frequently happen that a landlord is not in a position to rebuild old premises, but in that case he need not be entitled to evict the tenant. On the whole, therefore, it seems to me that the decision of Falshaw J. in Panna Lal v. Jagan Nath 1963 P.L.R. 528, was correct and does not require to be overruled.

This, however does not satisfactorily dispose of the present petition. As pointed out by learned Counsel, the landlords did in this case alleged that they wanted to re-erect the premises but no serious notice was taken of that plea nor of its denial, and no issue was framed by the Rent Controller, and, considering the circumstances, it would, in my opinion, be unjust to dismiss the landlords'' petition without affording them a chance to prove what they have in fact alleged. I would, therefore, while allowing this petition and setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority as it stands, send the case back to the Appellate Authority for framing an issue regarding the landlord''s allegation that they Wished to re-erect the premises and obtaining a finding from the Rent Controller on that issue after the parties have led their evidence and then deciding the appeal afresh. No costs.

Prem Chand Pandit, J.

I agree.