Ranjit Kaur vs Piar Singh

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—This is a rule directed against the order of the District Judge, Ludhiana, who as Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) affirmed the order of the Rent Controller declining to grant an order of ejectment at the instance of the petitioner landlord

Ranjit Kaur, who is the landowner, applied for ejectment of respondent Piar Singh on 20th of October, 1964, from the demised premises consisting of a room on the ground floor which has been leased to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/-. The ground of ejectment in the short application of 20th October, 1964, is embodied in paragraph 3 and is to this effect:-

That the respondent is liable to be evicted from the said premises because the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and are required to be demolished under orders of the Municipal authorities The petitioner proposes to reconstruct the same after demolition of the existing structures.

Under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Act:-

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 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.

According to the unchallenged testimony of Dina Nath, Building Inspector, who was examined as A. W 1, before the Rent Controller, notice (Exhibit A-1) was issued by the Ludhiana Municipality to Ranjit Kaur on 27th of July, 1964. This notice which was issued on the complaint of the Mohaliadars about the dangerous condition of the building of which the demised premises is a portion, asked the landowner to demolish it within three days Presumably because of non compliance, another notice Exhibit A-2 was issued by the Municipal Committee for demolition of the building within six hours. Eventually, the demolition squad headed by Dina Nath visited the site on 13th October, 1964, and carried out the demolition work. It was elicited from this witness in cross-examination that respondent Piara Singh whose room was also to be demolished offered resistance and the demolition party contended it-self by demolishing the building except the room which is in occupation of Piar Singh. Though Piar Singh has denied this resistance, Ram Piari who at one time was a tenant of the petitioner examined as a witness of Piar Singh admitted that the latter did offer resistance. Dina Nath stated emphatically that the whole building was in a dangerous condition.

Thereafter, the landowner filed the present application for ejectment and during the pendency of this application the plan for the reconstruction of the building was also submitted to the Municipal Committee.

While Babu Ram Overseer, who appeared on behalf of the landowner, stated that the room in occupation of the respondent tenant was in a dangerous condition, Bachan Singh, who submitted reports in favour of the tenant, appeared as R. W. 3 and in cross-examination admitted that the "roof of Piar Singh''s shop is damaged and removed. There are five or seven cracks in the wall of the first floor towards road but they do not extend to ground floor". According to Bachan Singh, the room in occupation of the tenant could stand independently of the building which had been demolished.

The simple question for determination before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority was whether in such a situation the room in occupation of the tenant had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation ? It may be pointed out in passing that the applicant had founded the claim for ejectment in paragraph 3 to which I have adverted also on the ground that reconstruction of the building was required to be done by the local authorities. This aspect of the ejectment ground does not appear to have been dealt with by the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority but 1 will pass over this matter.

The Appellate Authority, whose order is challenged, without any reference to the evidence which had been adduced by the parties, examinedthe question as an abstract proposition of law and has reached the con -elusion that in law ejectment of the tenant could not be asked for. If this decision truly represents the law under the Act, it would be deplorable. This would mean that if a room out of the building which has been demolished can stand as a structure for some time the landlord cannot require it for its own reconstruction or that of the building which being dangerous has been demolished. Dua J, with whom I am in respectful agreement, had an occasion to refer to such a situation in Madan Lal Kapur v. Shri Nand Singh. While dealing with this point the learned Judge observed thus at pages 774 and 775 of the report:-

The argument that only those rooms which are unsafe or unfit for human habitation may be got vacated and the landlord be asked to carry out the necessary repairs so as to make them safe and fit for human habitation, leaving the rest of the building with the tenant, seems to be wholly unacceptable on the language and scheme of the statute and on the general principles. Plain reading of the provision in question does not support this argument.

I am unable to comprehend how these observations made by Dua J. are not applicable to the facts of the present case. What has come out in the evidence, to which I have adverted, is that the entire building of which the room in occupation of the tenant formed a part has been demolished by the Municipal Committee as being dangerous. The Municipal Committee had sent a notice with regard to the building of which the room in occupation of the tenant was a part, that it was in a dangerous condition and should be demolished. The Committee through Dina Nath got the building demolished and the room in question had, however, been left out from this operation because of the violent resistance offered by Piar Singh. What room is there to infer from evidence that the premises in occupation of the tenant is still fit for human habitation ? The approach adopted by the Appellate Authority is not warranted by the language of section 13, nor by the decision of Dua J. where it came to be interpreted.

I think, this petition for revision must be allowed and the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority set aside. An order for ejectment in favour of the petitioner is accordingly passed. The respondent tenant is given time up till 30th of April, 1968, to vacate the premises. There would be no order as to costs of this petition.