Harnek Singh vs Bir Singh and others

J.S. Sekhon, J.—The tenant has directed this revision petition u/s 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called ''the Act''), against the order of the Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Patiala ordering his ejectment from the shop in dispute on the ground of it having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

In brief, the facts are that the shop in dispute, located near Nabha Gate, Patiala, was taken on rent by Harnek Singh tenant from Bir Singh landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- with effect from November 1, 1971 vide rent note dated October 11, 1971, for a period of 11 1/2 months. The tenant continued occupying this premises after the expiry of contractual period of tenancy and, thus, became a statutory tenant. The landlord sought his ejectment from the premises in dispute on the basis of non payment of rent and the premises having become unsafe and unfit fot human habitation.

The tenant resisted this application by tendering the arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing, but controverted the allegation of the landlord regarding the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

The learned Rent Controller, Patiala dismissed the application of the landlord by holding that the falling of a small portion of the ceiling of one room had not rendered it unsafe and unfit for human habitation The landlord then went in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Patiala, who reversed the findings of the Rent Controller by holding that a portion of the tenanted premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has come up in revision petition before this Court.

During the pendency of this revision petition, the tenant has also filed Civil Misc. No. 5559 C-II of 1987 for permission to produce the photographs marks PP-1 and PP-2 of the shop in dispute in order to establish that the substantial portion of the shop was quite fit and safe for human habitation.

Mr. R.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioner, relying upon the findings of the Supreme Court in Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra 1988 (2) Rent. CR 32, contended that even if the roof of one small room had fallen, it would not render the entire shop unfit and unsafe for human habitation especially when a major portion of the tenanted premises comprising of an independent front room is in safe and sound condition. Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, supported the findings of the Appellate Authority contending that the dilapidated room being part of the tenency would render the entire premises unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He tried to distinguish the findings of the Supreme Court on facts by stating that the fallen roof of a room in that case was got repaired in pursuance of the orders of Rent Controller u/s 12 of the Act.

It is admitted case of the parties that the tenanted premises comprises of one independent front room. Thereafter there is an open court-yard and a back room. Admittedly the roof of the back room was found sagging when Shri Bakhtawar Singh Sidhu, a retired Sub-Divisional Officer, visited the spot on 4th of February, 1976 and prepared its plan Exhibit PW3/1, besides submitting his report The report Exhibit PW5/2 of Shri Harbans Singh Advocate, who was appointed as local commissioner, also reveals that he examined the premises on July 29, 1975 and found that the condition of the shop was normal except the back room He further noticed that the major portion of the roof of the backroom is eaten by white ants and there are two holes on the left side corner of the roof. He also observed a spacious hole on the side will of the room which was filled temporarily by placing some loose bricks The Rent Controller also inspected the premises on January 29, 1977 and found that a portion of the roof of the back room had fallen and a wooden support was supporting the remaining portion of the ceiling, besides observing that the room was of temporary structure and used for storing wooden Ballas and scraps and that there was a hole in the wall which has been filled up with bricks. Under these circumstances there is no escape but to conclude that the roof of the back room was in dilapidated condition, but the side wall of the room has not doveloped any cracks as alleged by Shri Bakhtawar Singh Sidhu PW3 in his testimony and report Exhibit PW3/2. The perusal of the plan Exhibit PW3/1, prepared by this witness, also shows that both the front room and the back room of this premises are almost of the same size, whereas there is a tinshed in some portion of the open court-yard intervening these two rooms. Thus, even if it is taken that the ceiling of the back room require replacement, it would not amount to rendering the entire building unsafe and unfit for human habitation, especially when a major portion of the premises in dispute, i.e. the front room, the shed and court-yard, are in enjoyable condition.

It is not disputed that the back room was being used for storing Ballas and scraps by the tenant who is running a carpenter''s workshop in the premises in dispute Under these circumstances it cannot be said that a substantial portion of the tenanted premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation especially when it comprises of two independent rooms besides the court-yard. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Piara Lal v Kewal Krishan Chopra (supra) can safely be relied upon in this regard. In that case, out of the four tenanted rooms on the ground floor, the roof of one room had fallen but got repaired by the expense of the landlord after securing an order from the Rent Controller u/s 12 of the Act. Under these circumstances in para No. 6 of the judgment it was held as under:

It is true that a roof of one of the rooms on the rear side had fallen down and required replacement bat there was no evidence whatever that the entire building or a substantial portion of it was in a damaged condition and consequently the building as a whole had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Unless, the evidence warranded an inference that the falling down of the roof in one room was fully indicative of the damages and weak condition of the entire building and that the collapse of the roof was not a localised event. We fail to see how the High Court could have concluded that the entire building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In fact, the Appellant had replaced the roof only at a cost of about Rs. 200/- and this would independently show that the damage that had occurred could not have been of a serious or disquieting nature.

The findings of this High Court in Shri Madan Lal Kapur and Ors. v. Shri Nand Singh 1966 Cur. L.J. 772, relied upon by the Appellate Authority, are not attracted to the facts of the case in hand as in that case a few rooms of cho building hid become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the controversy never related to the dilapidated roof of one independent room being sufficient to conclude whether the building had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

For the fore-going reasons, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala being not sustainable is, hereby, set aside by accepting this petition. However, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Civil Miscellaneous No. 5559 C-II of 1987 stands dismissed as without the evidence of the photographer, the photographs would not be of any help for assessing the actual condition of the premises in dispute.