Sat Dev Sole Proprietor of M/s S.D. Hosiery Mills, Purani Kotwali, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana vs Shri Sanjeev Garg

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom eviction has been ordered by both the authorities below.

The landlord-Respondent sought the ejectment of his tenant Sat Dev from the demised premises primarily on the ground that it had become unfit and usafe for human habitation. The petition was contested mainly on the ground that in the previous ejectment application by the landlord, this very ground was taken and the same was dismissed on 25th April, 1980. That being so, the present petition was barred u/s 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. The learned Rent Controller found that the present ejectment application was not barred u/s 14 of the Act, as the earlier application for ejectment was never decided on merits. It was further found that from the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the building in dispute was very old and bore cracks; that a part of the building had already fallen, and, consequently, the premises in dispute were in a dangerous condition and could crumble any time. Therefore, the premises in dispute had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, having outlived its life, it was observed With this finding, the order of eviction was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, and observed that "it is proved from the evidence of Sachdev Gupta, a retired Executive Engineer, that the building in dispute is very old and the upper storey of one of the rooms had disappeared." It was further found that a part of the building, a portion of which was the subject matter of the present litigation, was in the tenancy of Ram Dayal who was ejected on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, which ground was upheld even by the High Court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since in the earlier ejectment application filed on 28th November, 1977, this very ground was taken by the landlord, and that application was dismissed on 25th April, 1980, the same very ground was not available to the landlord now. He also submitted that the ejectment application was not bona fide, as no proceedings had been taken against another tenant Mangat Ram who is in occupation of a shop which is an integral part of the entire building.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. In the earlier ejectment application, the above-mentioned ground was never decided by the Rent Controller. Moreover, whether the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation is a question to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. It was observed by this Court in Charan Dass v. Shri Vishwa Mitter 1981 (1) R. L. R. 205, that where the previous application on the ground that that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was rejected, subsequent application on the same ground, but on subsequent facts, was not barred.

Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the Petitioner is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller with in one month from today, with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession shall be handed over to the landlord and that the rent for the said period shall be paid in advance by the 10th of each month.