Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Murari Lal on 10 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1996)113PLR529
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. Bhupinder Singh landlord (hereinafter referred as the landlord) filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of Murari Lai tenant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) on the ground that the shop in dispute situate at Court Road, Bhatinda is in dilapidated condition and had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
2. Tenant contested the petition. Tenant also filed an application Under Section 12 of the Act for carrying out certain repairs which was dismissed by the Rent Controller. Ejectment petition Under Section 13 of the Act was allowed and it was held that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Tenant was ordered to be ejected. Against the judgment of the Rent Controller which was disposed of by a common order, tenant filed two separate appeals that is one against the rejecting of his application Under Section 12 of the Act for carrying out repairs and the second against the order of ejectment passed Under Section 13. His appeal under Sectionl2 of the Act was dismissed. Findings recorded by the Rent Controller in the ejectment petition Under Section 13 of the Act were reversed. It was held that the building was fit for human habitation. Ejectment petition was dismissed against which landlord has filed this revision petition.
3. Landlord filed CM. No. 5886-CII of 1987 for appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of the building. Later on CM. No. 3839-CII of 1991, was filed alleging therein that the demised premises had further deteriorated during the pendency of the revision petition as big portion of the roof and two walls had fallen. Counsel for the petitioner also produced certain photographs which according to the counsel pertain to the demised premises. Since the authenticity of these photographs had not been proved before me, it was deemed appropriate to ap- point a Local Commissioner. Accordingly, Mr. Navin Mahajan, Advocate of this Court was appointed as Local Commissioner to visit Bhatinda and inspect the demised premises. Local Commissioner was directed to get the photographs of the demised premises taken in his presence and submit his report along with the photographs duly marked.
4. Local Commissioner inspected the demised premises on 4.5.1996 after informing the counsel for the parties about the date and time of his visit to the site so that they could inform their respective parties to be present at the side at the time of inspection. Inspection was carried by the Local Commissioner in the presence of the parties. Photographs of the demised premises were also taken in their presence. Local Commissioner has submitted his report which is taken on record and marked as 'X' along with 15 photographs marked as Al to A15. Corresponding negatives of these photographs have also been taken on record. Landlord had signed the report whereas as reported by the Local Commissioner tenant refused to sign the same. I have perused the report and seen the photographs. Local Commissioner has reported that wooden planks which are fixed on the iron girders are bent in the middle and there is also space in between the wooden planks. Particles of sand and debris were falling at regular intervals through the space in between the wooden planks during inspection. Wooden planks which were there on the roof were broken and the same were in a shamble/deteriorating condition. Gaps were also visible through the wooden planks. Upper front side of the roof had fallen down and the debar's was lying on the wooden planks which were fixed on the iron girders. There is a big hole in the front portion of the shop. Photograph marked A-13 has been taken from the roof which shows that there is a big hole of about two feet vide from where inside of the shop can be seen. From the perusal of the report and the photographs which have been taken on the record I am satisfied that the building has become totally unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
5. Neither of the parties have filed their objections to the report submitted by the Local Commissioner. Counsel appearing for the respondent admitted that condition of the demised premises was bad but he argued that landlord in the year around 1984 had constructed shop on the western side of the demised shop. He had raised pillars with the western wall in question and removed 15-20 bricks for support of the pillars. Landlord had assured the tenant that he would get the repair done but the landlord later on refused to get any repairs done in the shop. This fact was brought to the notice of the lower appellate Court as well. The condition of the premises has to be examined as it exists today. The demised premises are in the bad shape and have became totally unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The wide gaps of more than two feet are visible in the roof. Otherwise, also the condition of the shop is totally dilapidated and the same is required by the landlord for reconstruction.
6. Revision petition is pending in this Court for the last nine years. In the year 1991 petitioner filed CM. No. 3839-CII of 1991 alleging therein that the demised premises have further deteriorated as a big portion of the roof and two walls have fallen. Events which have taken place during the pendency of the revision petition can be taken into consideration specially when ejectment is sought on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the same has further deteriorated during the pendency of the revision petition.
7. Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller restored. Tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises within three months from today. No costs.