Paras Ram vs Salig Ram (Died) his L.Rs. and others

J.S. Sekhon, J.—The tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala, upholding the order of Rent Controller ejecting the tenant from the shop in dispute on the ground of it being unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the shop in dispute is situate in Loha Bazar, Mandi Gobindgarh, which was rented out to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 260/- per month by Bhagwan Dass and Salig Ram. The aforesaid Salig Ram and the legal heirs of Bhagwan Dass filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller on November 29, 1978 seeking ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute on the basis of non-payment of rent and it having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. This application was resisted by the tenant by tendering the arrears of rent besides contending that the shop in dispute requires same repairs and that the dismissal of the earlier application of the landlords on similar grounds in the year 1969 would operate as res judicata The tenant also subsequently filed an application u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, against the landlords for effecting repairs of the shop.

The Rent Controller consolidated both these applications and ordered the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of the shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The appeal filed by the tenant was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, holding that the two portions of the shop in dispute having fallen it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

Learned counsel for the tenant in this revision petition had simply contended that the landlords should not be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong in not repairing the roof of the disputed shop after the dismissal of the application vide order Ex. R. 2, by the Rent Controller in the year 1969, holding that the shop was not unfit and unsafe for human habitation Learned counsel for the landlords, on the other hand, supported the finding of the lower court.

It is well known fact that a landlord is reluctant to effect repairs of the tenanted premises in those cases in which he had already taken steps for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of the property having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. A perusal of the order Ex. R. 2 reveals that the earlier application was filed on 6.12.1968 for the ejectment of the tenant and it was dismissed on March 29, 1969 on the ground that only one beam of the roof of the shop had broken and could be easily repaired. Lack of pleadings regarding the shop being required for reconstruction also weighed with the Rent Controller. There is no evidence on the file that thereafter the tenant moved the Rent Controller u/s 12 of the said Act for directing the landlords to effect necessary repairs. The tenant had filed an application u/s 12 after the filing of the present application by the landlords for ejectment of the tenant One can well imagine the condition of the shop in the year 1978 when this application was filed in view of the factum that it requires major repairs in the year 1968. Thus, in view of the above referred lapse on the part of the tenant in not enforcing the landlords to repair the shop, it cannot be said that the landlords were allowed to get benefit of their own wrong. On the other hand, the concurrent findings on the facts of the two lower courts clearly reveal that 2/3rd portion of the roof of the shop had also collapsed. Learned counsel for the tenant had not assailed the findings of the lower Courts on merits.

For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed, but the parties are left to bear their own costs in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. The tenant is allowed two months period from today to vacate the premises in order to make alternate arrangement for running his business.