Sham Lal vs Mohan Lal and Others

M.M. Aggarwal, J.—This is tenant''s petition against judgment dated 23.7.2005 passed by Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur whereby an appeal of the tenant-petitioner against order dated 7.5.2004 of the Rent Controller, Gurdaspur was dismissed.

The facts of the case are that an ejectment petition u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 was filed by the respondent-landlord in respect of the shop situated at Behrampur Road, Dinanagar against Sham Lal on the ground that the shop was in dilapidated condition and was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the landlord required the shop for own use and occupation. That petition was allowed on the ground of the shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.

As per report and evidence of Sh. Ved Parkash Saini, Building Expert of the landlord, the roof of the shop had bent and water was falling in the shop. The tenant had given support of Bailies to the roof otherwise roof would have fallen. The tenant had even put Tarpoline sheet on the roof to save from the water from the roof of the shop and tenant was not doing any work in the shop and was sitting outside for cycle repair. It was found that tenant purchased another shop near the shop in dispute and shifted all his material and articles to that shop. Tenant had even admitted that five ballas of the shop required replacement.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that five balls, which were in bad conditions, could be replaced and there was no good ground to direct eviction. He had relied on a judgment of this Court in Daulat Ram v. Sadhu Ram 1990 (1) R.L.R. P & H 32. However, in that case, only one khan was in damaged condition, which was held to be minor repair.

5 Another judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shadi Singh Vs. Rakha, was relied. In that case, repair had already been done without disturbing possession of the tenant and therefore ground of ejectment was held to be merely a wish.

Counsel for the respondents-landlord had relied on judgments reported in 2003 (1) R.C.R. 449 and Darshan Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar 2003 (3) CCC 671 and argued that when building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation then it gave right to landlord to reconstruct the shop by evicting tenant and the landlord was not supposed to wait till the building actually falls.

The petition for ejectment had been filed in the year 1998. It was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Appeal filed by the tenant had been dismissed. Now, it is year 2007.

It had come in evidence that the tenant had put Tarpoline sheet to save himself from water from the roof of the shop in dispute. It had also been admitted by the tenant that five ballas of the shop required replacement. It had also been admitted by the tenant in the cross-examination that the roof of the shop had lowered. It had come in evidence that even tenant was not doing any business there and had constructed a new shop and had shifted there.

Under these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment/orders of the Court below.