Kamla Devi vs Kasturi Lal

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitiom Nos. 320 and 103 of 1978, as both of them have been filed agaiast the common judgment of the Appellate Authority dated November 22, 1977.

The landlady Kamla Devi sought the ejecment of the tenant Kasturi Lal from the premises, in dispute, on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller passed the eviction order against him On the other hand M/s Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander filed the application u/s 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) for seeking permission to make necessary repairs to the premises. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. It deserves mention at this stage that both the petitions, i e., the one for the eviction of the tenant Kasturi Lal from the premises, and the other on behalf of M/s. Kasturi Lal Subhash Chancier, for seeking permission to make necessary repairs thereof, were consolidated and disposed of by one judgment dated May 1,1976. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller as regards the plea by the landlady that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. However, on the issue whether it was Kasturi Lal or the M/s. Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander, who was the tenant on the premises, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that it was M/s- Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander who was a tenant thereon. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for repairs of the premises was maintained. Aggrieved against the findings of the Appellate Authority, the landlady has filed Civil Revision Petition No 330 of 1978 whereas M/s Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander have filed Civil Revision Petition No. 103 of 1978.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that after having found that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the ejectment order was rightly passed by the Rent Controller by holding that it was Kasturi Lal who was the tenant and not the firm M/s Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander as alleged by him. The finding of the Rent Controller in this behalf has been reversed by the Appellate Authority arbitrarily and against the evidence on the record. Kasturi Lal tenant, himself appeared in the witness-box and admitted that:

Since the time I took the shop in dispute on rent no repairs were got done by the landlord.

On the basis of this part of the testimony, the learned Rent Controller found that it was Kasturi Lal who had taken the premises on rent Besides, Kasturi Lal has also stated in his cross-examination that the shop had been taken on rent in 1961 whereas the partnership deed of the firm may have been written in the year 1962-63. From this also, it was concluded that originally it was Kasturi Lal who had taken the shop, in dispute, on rent from Kamla Devi landlady. Apart from that, the ejectment is being sought on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. in that situation, at hardly mattered whether it was Kasturi Lal in his individual capacity who was a tenant thereon it was the firm Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander who occupied the same as a tenant. It is not the case of the tenant Kasturi Lal that he has been prejudiced in any manner by not impleading the firm in the eviction application against him as such. Even the application for repairs, though purported to have been filed on behalf of the firm, M/s. Kasturi Lal Subhash Chander, was filed by Kasturi Lal, himself. Thus it was Kasturi Lal, tenant who contested both the cases. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him on any account As observed earlier, since it has been found by both the authorities below that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the eviction order is to be passed against the tenant.

Consequently, Civil Revision Petition No. 330 of 1978 succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the tenant is restored. Civil Revision Petition No. 103 of 1978, is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant Kasturi Lal, is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month and also as undertaking, in writing, is given that after the expiry of the said period of three months, he will vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the landlady.