Mange Ram vs Gurdial Singh Alias Gurdial Chand

M.S. Liberhan, J.—The sole question raised in this revision petition is whether the building in dispute is unfit for human habitation or not. The trial Court after appraising the evidence led by the parties and keeping in view the inspection notes came to the conclusion that since the upper portion of the building in dispute has become unfit for human habitation, the Respondent is liable to be ejected therefrom.

The appellate authority without reversing the findings with respect to the building in dispute being unfit for human habitation, came to the conclusion that since the only plea taken in the ejectment petition is that the building has become unfit for human habitation on account of construction of an oven inside the shop, so no evidence can be looked into to prove the unfitness of the building for habitation being beyond pleadings. It was observed that the landlord has set up a new case during trial. The findings of the trial Court were set aside and it was held that the Petitioner has failed to prove that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that this finding of the learned lower appellate Court with respect to absence of the pica regarding unfitness of the building for human habitation cannot be sustained. The approach of the learned lower appellate Court is illegal and in view of the evidence on the record, there is no propriety in the findings arrived at by the lower appellate authority. The learned Counsel has further read out the petition for ejectment as well as the statement of PW-3 Shamsher Singh as also his report Exhibit P-2. He also placed reliance upon Sardarni Sampuran Kaur v. Sant Singh (1981) P.L.R. 1.

It was held in the above quoted judgment that if the substantial portion of a particular building has become unsafe for human habitation, the tenant can be ejected from the premises forming part thereof u/s 13(1) of the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act despite the fact that a particular portion in his occupation may not be so.

The counsel for the Respondent has controverted the submission made and contended that in the absence of a specific plea of the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, no amount of evidence can be looked info to return a finding that the building has become unfit for human habitation, the reasoning given by the Petitioner that the cause for making the building unfit for human habitation was the oven cannot be accepted since the oven was in existence before the Respondent became the tenant and it cannot be imagined that the building has become unfit and unsafe on account of the oven. The counsel farther read over the statement of RW-1 Dwarka Parshad along with his report Exhibit R-2.

The proceedings under the Rent Restriction Act are summary proceedings and strict principles of law of pleadings cannot be applied in its terms. Otherwise also, the object of the pleadings is to make a party know the basis of one''s claim or the defence, by which the Defendant wants to meet the claim. If parties, conscious of the fact in dispute, have led evidence without a little finger being raised with respect to the absence of the pleadings, then one of them cannot be permitted to subsequently raise such hypertechnical objection. The pleadings of the parties have to be read as a whole, The petition cannot be dissected. It is well known that the pleadings are not usually artistically drawn in Muffisal Courts inspite of the provisions of order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It cannot be disputed that it is only the fact which is the basis for the relief claimed by a patty which is required to be pleaded. Mere reproduction of the statutory provisions of law are of no consequence. As the learned Counsel for the parties read out the petition for ejectment, the sum and substance of the facts alleged in the ejectment petition are, that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, though while averring this fact of building being unfit for human habitation, further the reasons have been given for its becoming unfit for human habitation and acts for tendering it so are also given. The Act only envisages that one has plead the fact of the building being unfit for human habitation. One need not give the reasons for the same. The pith and substance of the petition, for ejectment if read as a whole is that Respondent constructed an oven inside the shop and for that reason the shop in dispute was rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Petitioner further stated in the petition that the walls and the floor of the Chobara in dispute have cracked and further reasons have been added for which the cracks in the walls etc. have developed. The parties were well aware of the ground of ejectment and evidence was led by the parties. Specific issue was framed with respect to the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. There is no doubt that the issues are not happily worded nor are the pleadings. In spite of this, the parties have understood their case and their respective claims. The inference has been wrongly drawn by the lower, appellate Court by compartmentalisation of the ejectment petition.

The reason rendering the building unfit for human habitation is irrelevant for determination of the rights of the landlord to get ejectment on the ground of the building having become unfit for human habitation.

The evidence has been appreciated and the Courts below have come to a conclusion that the premises in dispute in possession of the land lord have became unfit for human habitation as it had developed irreparable cracks in its walls and further the wall had bulged out and gone out of the plumb. Even the approach to the stairs to the roof has become difficult because the wail is going out plumb. Seeing the photographs as well as the inspection notes by the Rent Controller and reading the statement of PW-3 Shamsher Singh along with his report Exhibit A-2, I am of the view that the building in dispute has become unfit for human habitation. The trial Court, on cogent reasons and after appreciating the evidence, keeping the visual notes of the Inspect on of the premises in dispute in view, has rightly come tea conclusion that there are cracks, the walls are separate and certain small cracks in the shop have been plugged by cement and the building being old has outlived its utility and it does not look to be a safe building. The building requires re-construction to make it habitable. It is observed that the Expert produced by the parties usually support the case of the party by whom he is produced. It is one of those clear cases where Expert PW-3 Shamsher Singh has opined that the shop in dispute is quite fit for human habitation in spite of his admitting the fact that he has not gone up to the roof of the first floor nor seen the walls of the staircase. He had the audacity to say in his report as well as in the witness box that be has not seen any cracks in the walls when admittedly the inspection note of the Rent Controller has pointed out the cracks and building out of plumbs the walls. In view of these patently flase assertions having been made by the Expert, his statement cannot be relied upon.

I am of the considered view that for the reasons recorded above, the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the Respondent is liable to be ejected. Accordingly, I accept the revision petition, set aside the findings of the lower appellate Court and order the ejectment of the Respondent from the demised premises.

On the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the Respondent is permitted to vacate the demised premises within two months from today provided an undertaking is filed by him in this Court within 15 days from today that he will hand over the peaceful possession of the demised premises vacant and to the Petitioner before the expiry of the period of two months and further all the arrears of rent and the rent for the period the premises are retained is paid to the Petitioner or deposited in the Court in advance. No order as to costs.