Mangat Ram vs Sant Lal Nagpal

Jatinder Vir Gupta, J.—This is landlord''s petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

The landlord Mangat Ram filed the ejectment application dated 2.11.1986 seeking the ejectment of his tenant Sant Lal, inter alia, on the ground that the premises consist of vacant site measuring 4 Kanal 17 Marlas, with ten room therein, situate in Mandi Malout. The same was rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- in which the tenant was running a private educational academy. Two of these rooms with an adjoining verandah fell down about four years ago prior to the filing of the ejectment application. When the tenant started reconstruction of these rooms, the landlord objected to the same and he filed a civil suit on 11-8-1976 against the tenant seeking permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 27-9-1976, in favour of the landlord because the tenant conceded to his demand that he would not make any construction. Immediately, thereafter on 2-11-1976, the landlord filed the present ejectment application on the ground of the premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenant controverted the said allegations of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that only an insignificant part of the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe and there was no cogent evidence on the record to show that the rest of the rooms have become dilapidated or unfit for the use of the students and, therefore, the landlord was not entitled to the eviction order Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed on 31-7 1979. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order rejecting the ejectment application.

Learned Counsel for the landlord-Petitioner submitted that admittedly rooms marked ''A'' and ''B'' and the verandah adjoining thereto had already fallen in the year 1976. When the tenant wanted to reconstruct the same, the landlord had to file a civil suit for injuuetion which was ultimately decreed. Immediately thereafter the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that it had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, in view of these facts, the view taken by the authorities below in this behalf was wholly wrong, illegal and improper. The tenancy being one could not be bifurcated and therefore, the landlord was entiled to eject his tenant from the demised premises. In support of his contention, he referred to Smt. Bhagwanti and Ors. v. Yasodha Devi 1980 (1) R.C.J. 566.

On the other ha(Sic) the (Sic)earned Counsel for the tenant submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that the demised premises has not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. In any case argued the learned Counsel, that even if two rooms and the verandah had fallen, still the tenant was not liable to ejectment because the remaining portion was intact. According to the learned Counsel, there was no evidence that the entire building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In support of his contention, he referred to Piara Lal Vs. Kewal Krishan Chopra, .

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the authorities below was wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. It is no more disputed that out of ten rooms consisting of the demised premises, two rooms and a verandah had already fallen in the year 1976. When the tenant wanted to reconstruct the same, the landlord had to file a civil suit for permanent injunction which was decreed in his favour. Immediately thereafter, he filed the present ejectment application in the year 197(Sic), which is unfortunately pending for the last more than 13 years. The tenancy is one and if a part of the tenancy has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the tenant that he was not liable to ejectment from the remaining portion. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopta (supra), has no applicability to the facts of the present case. There, the landlord himself was never keen to plead that the tenant was liable to ejectment because the roof of one of the room had fallen. Not only that, even he allowed the tenant to replace the roof in an application filed u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It was under these circumstances that the Supreme Court observed in para 6 thereof that--

On a careful consideration of the matter with reference to the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in allowing the revision and directing the eviction of the Appellant u/s 13(3)(a)(iii). It is true that a roof of one of the rooms on the rear side had fallen down and required replacement but there was no evidence whatever that the entire building or a substantial portion of it was in a damaged condition and consequenty the building as a whole had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Unless the evidence warranted an inference that the falling down of the roof in one room was fully indicative of the damaged 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 High Court has failed to notice two factors of relevance, viz., (1) that the Respondent had given his consent to the Rent Controller granting permission u/s 12 of the Act to the Appellant to replace the roof and (2) that in spite of the alleged cause of action having arisen due to the falling down of the roof, the Respondent did not immediately seek amendment of the petition so as to seek eviction of the Appellant on the additional ground u/s 13(3)(a)(iii) but instead he chose to prosecute his petition only on the original grounds for eviction set forth therein and only after failing before the Rent Controler and preferring an appeal to Appellate Authority, he deemed it necessary to amend the petitition and ask for eviction of the Appellant on the additional ground u/s 13(3)(a)(iii). The abovesaid conduct of the Respondent would clearly reveal that he himself had not attached any significance to the falling down of the roof in one of the room and had not seriously considered that a sustainable causes of action had accrued to him u/s 13(3)(a)(iii) for seeking the eviction of the Appellant The High Court has not only failed to appreciate these factors but has also proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the falling down of the roof in one room was by itself sufficient to warrant a finding that the entire building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and called for a declaration to that effect. It is this basic error which has affected the reasoning of the High Court led the High Court to apply the ratio laid down in certain cases where the facts and circumstances were entirely different

Thus, it is quite evident that in the present case since a portion of the demised premises has fallen the landlord is entitled to eject his tenant.

It may also be mentioned here that the tenant is running a private educational academy in the demised premises. If in the year 1976 two rooms had already fallen, the condition of the remaining rooms can also be well visualised. No risk could be taken that in such a situation the tenant should be allowed to carry on the said private educational academy which may endanger the lives of the students attending the same

Thus, keeping into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, the landlord is entitled to evict the tenant on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, this petition succeeds, the impugned orders are set aside and the eviction order is passed against the tenant.

However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and advance rent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord.