Kusum Kumar vs Smt. Parkash Wati

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—By this common judgment, two Civil Revision Petitions bearing No. 1747 and 1748 of 1981 can conveniently be disposed of together. Both the revisions are directed against two separate orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amloh, but the common judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala, dated 23.2.1981. The learned Rent Controller, Amloh, had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner Kusum Kumar u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act") but allowed the petition for eviction filed by Smt. Parkash Wati. The appeals filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Patiala.

The relevant facts are that the petitioner had been inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by one Prabh Dayal. The suit property was purchased by Roshan Lal who had filed a petition for eviction. The sole ground of eviction that survives for consideration is as to whether the property in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not. It had been asserted that the roof of one of the rooms had fallen a few days before the filling of eviction application. The roof of the other room had also about to fall. The petitioner had denied the said ground of eviction and contended that it is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the petitioner, the landlord is residing on the back side of the shop. He has an easy access to the roof. He had deliberately unearthed the roof of the middle room thereby causing a portion of the roof to fall. As per Petitioner, he had since repaired the fallen portion of the roof. Plea had also been taken that the previous owner had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner''s mothers.

The petitioner had also filed an application u/s 12 of the Act. The Petitioner''s case was that roof of the last portion of the shop requires minor repair as that portion of the roof had fallen during the pendency of the eviction application. Other- wise, the petitioner''s case was that shop is safe and fit for human habitation. The respondent-landlady was alleged to have failed to repair the same, he prayed that either the respondent should get it repaired or the petitioner should be allowed to get the shop repaired and adjust the amount spent on repairs towards rent.

The respondent had contested the application u/s 12 of the Act. It was denied that the shop requires minor repairs. The respondent maintained that the shop in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondent insisted that the shop is in a dangerous condition.

In both the petitions, separate issues were framed. The learned Rent Controller held that the suit premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As regards application u/s 12 of the Act, the Learned Rent Controller returned the finding that the said application is mala fide because the suit property is not in a safe condition.

Aggrieved by these orders of the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred two separate appeals. The learned Appellate Authority approved the findings of the learned Rent Controller or in other words, both the appeals were dismissed.

The first and the foremost question that came up for consideration is the distinction between the scope and ambit of section 12 of the Act and the Ground of eviction that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

"12. Failure by landlord to make necessary repairs:- If a landlord fails to make the necessary repairs to a building other than structural alterations, it shall be competent for the Controller to direct application by the tenant and after such inquiry as the Controller may think necessary, that such repairs may be made by the tenant and that the cost may be deducted from the rent which is payable by him."

Similarly, section 13(3) (iii) of the Act with respect to the ground that the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation reads as under :-

"(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."

It is abundantly clear from the aforesaid that the scope of section 12 of the Act is confined to effecting repairs to the building others than structural alternations. It is different from reconstruction or whether the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The repairs would confine to tenable repairs. It would not include reconstruction or to do repairs in the guise of making structural alternations. If right to eviction is available, then in the guise of the repair, the said right cannot be defeated.

The finding of fact had been arrived at by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority. It is to the effect that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is based on evidence and by no stretch of imagination can be described to be absurd. Consequently, keeping in view the scope of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, unless the finding has been shown to be absurd or there is misreading of evidence, this Court will not interfere in such a finding.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that repairs of the roof would be included in the repair of the premises because it is not reconstruction. As it would be noticed hereinafter, the position herein is different. Not only the roof had fallen but the general structure of the building has been proved to be dangerous. Thus, this particular argument of the learned counsel necessarily fails and is rejected.

Regarding the condition arid the state of the building, the petitioner examined Komal Singh and Hira Lal, both retired S.D.Os. Komal Singh had examined the premises on 14.11.1973 and submitted his report. He again inspected the shop and submitted his report dated 26.2.1978. He proved that the roof of the first room was intact while the roof of the middle room had appeared to have been dismantled. As per the said witness, it could be repaired at an expense of Rs. 100/-. The report is Exhibit Rs. 5. He noted that portion of the third room was also lying dismantled and opined that it could be repaired at the cost of Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/-. Jugal Kishore examined by the respondent as RWZ indicated that the shop did not require minor repairs. Rather the roof of the second and third room requires replacement.

The evidence of the petitioner necessarily had to be ignored. One Parshotam Goyal was examined as Local Commissioner. He had visited the spot on 3.9.1973. According to his report dated 6.9.1973, two khans out of three khans had fallen. Malba was lying in the room itself. The sky was visible from the room. It was reported that the third Khan was also likely to fall. The roof of the third room was in a dilapidated condition. The Local Commissioner again visited the site on 21.1.1974. He now reported that the second room had been reconstructed and the roof of the third room had been repaired and white washed. Shri Tejwant Singh, Advocate, was appointed as a Local Commissioner and his report is dated 2.3.1976. According to it, the roof of the third room is in a bad shape.

The facts indicate that the roof of the second room had partly fallen. It could not be believed that the respondent had done the same. When the application for eviction was filled, the roof had already fallen. It appears that when the tenant had reconstructed the roof it had again fallen. Even the walls are not in a good shape. In these circumstances, the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority rightly concluded that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The finding of fact so arrived at requires no interference.

For those reasons, the revision petitions being without merit must fail and are dismissed.

The petition is granted three months time to vacate the suit premises.