Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Nath And Anr. vs Amaraj Singh And Ors. on 12 October, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR62
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. This is a revision petition filed by Narinder Nath, hereinafter described as "the petitioners", directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 16.3.1992 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated 13.1.1993. An order of eviction was passed against the petitioners which was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.
2. The relevant facts are that a petition for eviction had been filed by the respondents against the petitioners with respect to the demised premises. It has been alleged that the demised property forms part of a integral larger residential building bearing No. 92. It is joint Hindu Family property. Certain other grounds of eviction had been taken which do not survive for consideration in the present revision petition. Therefore, they are not being mentioned. It was pointed out that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The building is more than 60 years old. The respondents want to reconstruct the same after demolishing the said building. The petitioners have failed to vacate the property despite many requests.
3. The petitioners contested the claim of the respondents. Certain other defences had been offered which are not being pressed or relevant. It was, however, denied that the suit property forms part of the integrated larger building bearing No. 92. It was stated that the building was constructed only 30-35 year ago. It was even denied that the said property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation or that it requires reconstruction after demolition.
4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and held that the property in question formed part of integrated larger building. It has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and accordingly on the said ground an order of eviction was passed.
5. An appeal, as pointed but above, has been preferred against the said order of eviction. In appeal, the said order was upheld. Hence, the present revision petition.
6. Earlier, a controversy has been raised as to whether the respondent-landlords are duty bound to return the portion after reconstruction to the tenants or-not. The answer had been provided by the decision of the Division Bench in the present revision petition and was in the negative. Therefore, the said controversy cannot be reagitated.
7. The first and the foremost question agitated was as to whether the property in question forms part of the integrated larger building or not. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that it is an independent unit and not a part of the integrated larger building and that it had a separate municipal number. Not only both the learned Controller and the learned Appellate Authority found it as a fact but the site plan of the suit premises also shows that it is a part of an integrated larger building. If for the sake of convenience, municipal number of the building has been given as 92-A and that of the main building as 92, it does not imply that they are two separate buildings. In fact, as already mentioned above, the said building is a part of the main structure and there is no ground to upset the findings of the learned Appellate Authority in this regard.
8. The only other question that requires consideration was as to whether the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the expert of the respondents did not visit the suit premises from inside and it cannot, therefore; be termed that the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
9. At the outset, it deserves a mention that merely because the building is old is no ground to conclude that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The age of the building may be relevant factor but not a proof about the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
10. Jagjit Singh, AW5 was examined as a witness who stated that the suit building forms part of the integrated larger building No. 92 and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The building was stated to have been constructed with mud-mortar. He has further deposed that the walls of the property in question have bulged out. There are many cracks that had developed in the walls. He also deposed that a portion of the roof of the bath room had fallen. Ram Lubaya, AW6, is the building expert. He had given his report-Exhibit A W6/1 in this regard. He stated that the condition of the back portion was very bad. He had seen the building. The walls were bulging. They had lost its adhesive power and strength. According to him, the building has outlived its age and utility. As against this, the petitioners had examined Joginder Singh, RW7, who deposed that the building in question had been white washed. The demised property was laid in mud-mortar. He admitted that the roof of the old portion in occupation of the landlords had fallen.
11. Even if the expert of the respondents could not enter the building, that does not imply that the condition of the building was safe and proper. It transpired in evidence that some portion of the roof of the adjoining portion had already fallen. It is a part of the integrated larger building. In that event, keeping in view, the totality of the fact that the walls of the premises in question were bulging, it must be taken that when the same has to be reconstructed and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, there is no ground to interfere in the order of eviction. This conclusion necessarily has to follow because of the decision of this Court in the case of Sardarni Sampran Kaur and Anr. v. Sant Singh and Anr., A.I.R. 1982 Punjab & Haryana 245. The question for consideration before the Division Bench was whether the tenant of the demised premises which is a part of integrated larger building can be evicted under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground of building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation despite the fact that the particular portion of the tenant may not be so. The answer was provided in paragraph 18 of the judgment. It reads as under:-
"To conclude the answer to the question posed in para 2 above is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that if the substantial part of the integrated larger building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation the tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof, under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act despite the fact that the particular portion in his occupation may not be so."
12. The decision of the larger Bench must prevail. Not only so, it has already been held that the demised premises is a part of the integrated larger building. The Walls of the present building were bulging. It would be improper to interfere in the order of eviction.
13. On behalf of the petitioners, strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, 1988(2) Rent Law Reporter 181. It was urged that if only one or two rooms are not in good shape, an order of eviction cannot be passed.
14. The contention of the learned counsel in this regard cannot be accepted. In Piara Lal's case (supra), it was found that only one room of the demised premises was not in a good shape. The roof could be replaced at a cost of Rs. 200/- only. It was in this backdrop, it was held that whole of the tenanted premises was not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the decision in Piara Lal's case (supra) will not come to the rescue of the petitioners. It was entirely on a different question of law that arose before the Supreme Court.
15. No other argument was advanced.
16. For the reasons given above, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
17. The petitioners are granted two months time to vacate the demised premises.