Des Raj vs Bachna Ram

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 3348 to 3354 of 1985, filed by Des Raj Jain landlord against his tenants, as the judgment is common in all these cases.

The landlord, Des Raj Jain, sought the ejectment of his seven tenants by filing separate applications u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), inter alia, on the ground that the shop in dispute in occupation of the tenants have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the landlord, the roofs of the building, including that of the demised shops are made of wooden rafters and wooden planks which have been damaged by white ants. Some of the rafters have actually fallen down. There are so many depressions on the roofs of the buildings in dispute and there is leakage of water through the roofs of the building. The first floor of the building in question is in a dilapidated condition and the same has been kept vacant for more than twelve years because of its dilapidated condition The building as a whole including the demised shops is in a dilapidated condition and may fall at any time. Thus, the building is not safe and fit for human habitation.

In the written statements, the tenants denied that the building is very old. On the other hand, it was claimed that the roof of the demised shops is A-Class and has a new lintel on it. There was absolutely no water leakage from the roofs and the question of its falling down does not arise. It was wrong that the whole building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The landlord is unnecessarily finding lame excuses to seek the eviction orders. Eviction cannot be sought on account of sufficiency of means or desire to re-construct, as alleged Since the landlord keeps the first floor portion locked and does not make necessary arrangements for even ordinary white washing and minor repairs, he by his intentional acts of negligence is not keeping the first floor in a condition in which be is bound to keep. He has sufficient accommodation on the first floor of the building for his settlement.

In the replications filed by the landlord he claimed that the demised shops formed an integral part of the building and the building cannot be reconstructed unless and untill the demised shops are demolished.

The learned Rent Controller concluded from the evidence led by the parties on the file that the ground floor is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and a portion of the upper floor, which is not the substantial part of the whole building and is in possession of the landlord, has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation due to utter negligence on the part of the landlord, who with mala fide intention, has neglected to maintain and effect necessary repairs in the said portion. In view of this finding, all the ejectment applications were dismissed vide order dated 13-8-1984.

In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority after discussing the entire evidence, again affirmed the abovesaid finding of the Rent Controller,

Learned Counsel for the landlord submitted that the view taken by the authorities below was wrong and illegal. The fallen portion of the first floor was the integral part of the entire building and, therefore, the tenants were liable to be evicted from the respective shops even if the shops as such were not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to him, even if it be assumed that the landlord neglected to make the necessary repairs for want of funds etc., on that ground it could not be held that the building has not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as to seek the ejectment of his tenants In support of this contention, reference was made to Paramjit Singh and Ors. v. Hari Chand 1984 Cur. L.J. 552; Smt. Shama Tiwari v. Smt. Gayatri Devi etc. 1984(2) R.C.R. 594; Ram Lal v. Smt. Rajinder Kaur 1988(1) R.C.R. 3: Bhagwan Dass v. Mohan Lal and Ors. 1988 (1) R.C.R. 120; Bhagat Ram v. Baij Nath (1988) 93 P.L.R. 65, and Shri Bala Ganesan Metals v. M.N. Shanmugham Chetty and Ors. 1987 (2) S.C.C. (sic)07.

On the other hand, the counsel for the Respondents submitted that the fallen portion was not the integral part of the entire building and, therefore, the tenants were not liable to ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In support of his contention he referred to Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra AIR 1988 S.C. 1482.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the case law cited at the Bar, I do not find any merit in these petitions. Both the authorities below, after discussing the entire evidence have given a concurrent finding that in this case the upper storey has not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation in natural course but has been made unfit and unsafe by the landlord himself who did not take proper care of the premises in his occupation with mala fide intention. That being so, the landlord cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own fault. The requirement of the Statute is that the building "has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation" and not that it "has been made unfit and unsafe for human habitation."

Moreover, the landlord himself constructed the shops separately in the year 1947. That itself proves that the shops as such could not be said to be integral part of the whole house as to entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of his tenant on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Even if part of the first floor has become unfit, that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, does not entitled the landlord to eject his tenants particularly when he is himself responsible for causing the present situation, as held by both the authorities below Moreover, whether the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation is primarily a finding of facts. Both the authorities below have discussed the entire evidence including the two maps produced by the parties and the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller. The findings are arrived at on the basis of the evidence on the record. There being no impropriety or illegality as such therein, no interference is called for.

Consequently, all the petitions fail and are dismissed with no order, as to costs.