Sham Dass vs Krishan Lal and another

Harbans Lal, J.—Krishan Lal, respondent, purchased evacuee property, that is a building comprised of the shops and the upper storey, from the Rehabilitation Department and a sale certificate, Exhibit A/1, dated July 4, 1966, was issued in his favour. Thereafter, half of the upper storey was purchased by one Sunder Dass from him. Before the purchase from the Rehabilitation Department Sham Dass, petitioner, was the allottee of the upper storey on a monthly Rent of Rs. 20/- according to the respondent, and Rs. 15/- according to the petitioner. u/s 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954, (hereinafter called the Compensation Act), the petitioner became tenant of the above-mentioned two landlords. Both the respondent in this revision petition and Sunder Dass filed separate eviction application against the petitioner on the ground inter alia that the premises, in dispute, were in dilapidated condition and were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner contested both the petitions and inter alia averred that the eviction petition in each case was not maintainable as the game had been filed before the expiry of two years from the date of the purchase by Krishan Lal respondent, from the Rehabilitation Department, that notice u/s 106, Transfer of Property Act, (hereinafter called the Act), had not been served and that the permises in dispute, were quite fit and safe. On the pleading of the parties, a number of issues were framed. The Pent Controller held that the notice u/s 106 of the Act, was imperative, that the petition u/s 29 of the Compensation Act, had been filed before the expiry of two years and as such the petitions were not maintainable. It was also held that the condition of the premises in dispute was such that the same cannot be held to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The eviction applications were consequently dismissed. In appeal, the landlord respondent succeeded and all the three findings by the Rent Controller were reversed by the Appellate Authority Consequently order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Against the two orders of the Rent Controller in the two eviction applications, separate appeals had been filed and were disposed of by separate order. Against them, the present petitioner has also filed two separate revisions The present revision petition is against Krishan Lal, landlord and Civil Revision No. 536 of 1975 was filed by him against Sunder Dass, landlord.

Mr. Sachdeva, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has addressed arguments in the other revision petition so far as the questions relating to the notice u/s 106 of the Act and the maintainability of the eviction application before the expiry of two years were concerned. I have dealt with these questions in detail in the other revision petition, that is, Civil Revision No. 536 of 1975, and it will be just a repetition to reproduce the contentions and my decision thereon in this judgment. It would suffice to hold that in the present case, eviction application was filed u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Rent Act) and according to the law settled by a latest decision of the Full Bench of this court in Vinod Kumar v. Harbans Singh Azad (1977) 79 P.L.R. 144, the issuance of a notice u/s 106 of the Act, was not necessary. On the second question it is held that the eviction application could be filed before the expiry of two years from the date of the purchase of the premises, in dispute, by the landlord from the Rehabilitation Department and the only requirement of section 29 of the Compensation Act is that the order of ejectment has to be passed after the expiry of two years.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, then challenged the finding of the appellate Court in respect of issue No. 4, regarding the premises in dispute, being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Go-bind Ram, R.W. 3, admitted in his statement that a portion adjoining the Court yard in the premises in dispute had fallen. According to Sham Dass petitioner, himself two rooms in the back side had fallen down after his occupation of the premises in dispute. According to the statement of the landlord Krishan Lal, P.W. 5, two out of the three rooms were Kholas and even in the third room four rafters were in a broken condition and cracks had developed in back of the roof. Shri Piara Singh Sectional Officer, Municipal Committee who was produced by the petitioner and had made a report after inspecting the premsies on November 4, 1969, also found cracks in the roofs and in the walls, according to whom, there was a crack in one beam and the condition of some rafters had also deteriorated. To wards the end of his statement, he admitted that the premises in dispute, were in a bad condition. Though the petitioner in his statements denied the presence of any cracks in the building, yet his statement was not believed by the Appellate Authority in view of the contradictory statement of Piara Singh who is a technical man and was produced by the petitioner himself. As a result of the assessment of the evidence on the record, the appellate Authority came to a firm conclusion that the condition of the premises in dispute, was such that the same were not fit and safe for human habitation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the cracks in the walls of the roofs of a part of, the building could be removed by minor repairs However, in view of the fact that two out of the three rooms had fallen and a number of cracks had developed in the walls and roof of the third room, the conclusion of the Appellate Authority that the building in dispute, was quite unfit and unsafe for human habitation has to be agreed to. According to the learned counsel, if the repairs are not carried out by a landlord, the tenant has been given the right u/s 12 of the Rent Act to approach the Court for orders to effect repairs. There can be BO dispute with this provision of law. In the present case, however, the petitioner did not approach the Rent Controller for getting the necessary repairs effected and this fact rather reinforces the case of the landlord that the petitioner did not feel the necessity or repairs because the condition of the building was such that no improvement could be brought about only by repairs. The mere fact that the in spite of the bad land deteriorating condition, the petitioner had been living there, does not warrant the conclusion that the building cannot be held unfit and unsafe for residential purposes.

Consequently no infirmity can be found with the conclusion of the Appellate Authority. In view of the same, there is no merit in revision petition and the same is dismissed, with costs. The petitioner may vacate the premises within one month.