Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chela Ram And Ors. vs Purshotam Lal And Ors. on 6 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR314
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
ORDER R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a tenants' revision and has been directed against the order dated 19.11.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), vide which the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller, who declined the application of the tenants under Section 12 of the Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Chela Ram and his son Krishan Lal filed an application against Purshotam Lal and others (landlords) under Section 12 of the Act and it was interalia pleaded by them that they are the tenants in the shop in dispute situated within the Municipal limits of Radaur on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and that the ejectment order has been passed by the Appellate Authority on 14.1.1983, but the order of the Appellate Authority had been stayed by the High Court. Subsequently, the eastern wall of the shop has been damaged due to heavy rains and due to the collapse of the wall of the adjoining shop belonging to one Mam Chand. But the roof of the shop is still intact. The applicants are running their business in the shop and that the matter is of urgent nature, so they may be allowed to effect the repairs at their own costs to be adjusted later on in the rent.
3. Notice of the application was given to the landlords, who contested the application by stating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the ejectment order has already been passed against the applicants by the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra on 14.1.1983. The applicants have filed a revision against the ejectment order dated 14.1.1983 in the High Court in which the execution of the ejectment order has been stayed, but so far ejectment orders are still in force. The landlords pleaded that the shop in question has collapsed and the re-construction of the shop cannot be allowed under the garb of so-called repairs. The front wall of the shop has completely collapsed and the front portion of the roof has also fallen. Besides this, serious cracks have developed in all the walls and the shop has been rendered completely unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
4. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 5.8.1983 dismissed the application of the applicants by holding that since the ejectment order has already been passed against the tenants on the plea of sub-tenancy, therefore, the application under Section 12 of the Act is not maintainable. Further, the repairs sought to be effected by the applicants involves replacement of some roof besides the construction of a new wall. So these so-called repairs do not fall within the purview of necessary repairs. Rather the proposed repairs are structural alterations.
5. The tenants filed an appeal against the order of the learned Rent Controller before the Appellate Authority, who modified the observations of the Rent Controller by holding that the proposed repairs are necessary repairs but since the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased by virtue of the order dated 14.1.1983 passed in the appeal filed by the landlords, therefore, the application of the tenants under Section 12 is not maintainable.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority, the present revision.
7. I have heard Ms. Himani Sarin, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Arun Jain, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance I have gone through the records of this case.
8. It may be mentioned at the first outset that I have allowed the revision of the tenants and have set aside the order dated 14.1.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority holding that Chela Ram had not sublet the demised premises i.e., shop, in favour of his sole son Krishan Lal. I have further held that the tenancy right of Chela Ram had been inherited by his son so as to make him a tenant of the demised premises. In this view of the matter, there thus exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties of this petition.
9. The sole point which survives for determination is whether the tenant can seek the directions of the court for effecting the necessary repairs or not. As per Section 12 of the Act if a landlord fails to make the necessary repairs to a building other than structural alternations, the Rent Controller is competent to direct, on an application by the tenants and after such enquiry as the Controller may think necessary, that such repairs may be carried out by the tenant and the costs thereof may be deducted from the rent which is payable by him. In this regard we have to see what is the case set up by the applicant/tenants when the application was moved before the Rent Controller in the year 1983. It was pleased by them that the eastern wall of the shop had been damaged due to heavy rains and due to the collapse of the wall of the adjoining shop belonging to one Mam Chand, but the roof of the shop is still intact. Thus, by their own saying, the eastern wall of the shop has been damaged. It can be further inferred that there must be damage to the roof. The stand of the landlords was that the shop in question has been collapsed and the re-construction of the shop cannot be allowed with the fall of the front wall and front portion of the roof. Moreover, serious cracks have developed in all the walls and the shop has rendered completely unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Section 12 of the Act only talks of necessary repairs and not material alterations. A tenant defeats the right of a landlord as given to him under Section 13 of the Act. If a demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, that right cannot be taken away by the tenant under the garb of Section 12. The learned Rent Controller was right when he stated that the nature of the proposed repairs would amount to major repairs which involve the replacement of some portion of roof as well as erection of a new wall. The learned Appellate Authority was not right in saying that the proposed repairs are necessary for the enjoyment of the demised premises.
10. In this view of the matter, 1 modify the order dated 19.11.1983 passed by the Appellate Authority and set aside the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority to the effect that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, by holding that the case set up by the tenants does not fall under Section 12 of the Act, the directions as prayed for by the tenants cannot be given by the Rent Controller. The application moved under Section 12 of the Act stands dismissed.