- (1.) Shri Charan Dass, tenant-petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullunder, dated November 2, 1976 whereby the order of the Rent Controller declining the ejectment of the tenant was set aside.
(2.) Vishwa Mitter, a landlord respondent, filed a petition for ejectment of his tenant, Charan Dass, inter alia on the ground that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation in much as the Municipal Committee had also issued a notice under Section 113/114 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The relevant averment to this effect in the ejectment application is as under "That the back wall of the shop is in a dangerous condition and it is liable to fall at any moment. Even the local Municipal Committee has served. a notice dated 19.7.1974 upon the said petitioner on the complaint of adjoining property owners. The northern and southern walls of this shop are in most serious and dangerous condition. They, have many cracks and these two walls may fall and collapse at any moment. The front wall is tolerable. It needs reconstruction." In reply thereto, it was pleaded in the written statement that the allegations made therein were not correct and were denied. The back And southern walls and the whole of the shop was in a sound condition and no notice was given to the landlord by the Municipal Committee. Even if given at the instigation and influence of the landlord, it was a false one. Otherwise, the shop was not likely to fall and did not require reconstruction. The notice was a mere execuse for ejectment of the tenant. In the replication, the averment made in the Eviction petition in this behalf was reiterated and it was stated as follows :- "The back and southern walls are in bad condition. This sub-paragraph of the application is correct and that of written statement is wrong". On the pleadings of the patties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the application is barred by Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 2. Whether a notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, was necessary in the present case If so, its effect 3. If issue No. 1 (new issue No. 2) is proved whether a valid and legal notice was served on the respondents . 4. Whether the respondents are liable to be ejected from the shop, in dispute, on any of the grounds mentioned in subclauses (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 2 of the application On issue No. 2, the Rent Controller, came to the conclusion vide separate order dated February 5, 197 5 that the application was not barred under Section 14 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and thus could not be summarily rejected. It was also observed in that order that the issuance of the notice by the Municipal Committee was not there at the time of the earlier application; Issues No. 2 and 3 were found against the tenant and it was held that no notice was necessary. On issue No. 4, all the grounds taken by the landlords were found against him. However, on the main ground, which is the subject matter of this petition, that is, whether the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the same was fit for human habitation and no ejectment could be ordered on that ground. The Rent Controller himself inspected the demised premises and his inspection note dated November 22,1975, reads thus :- "Today (22-11-1975) 1 have been to the shop in the presence of the parties. Shri K. N. Dheer Advocate counsel for the respondents was also present. The shop is pacca built, and white washed. It is a book shop. There is no crack visible in any wall., The roof is of irons and bricks. There seems no crack in the ceiling. The floors are in good condition and not damaged." On appeal, this finding of the Rent Controller, has been reversed by the Appellate Authority, but it is quite strange that no mention has been made about the inspection note recorded by the Rent Controller while setting aside the finding. Consequently, the order of ejectment was passed on this ground alone. All the other grounds pleaded by the landlord were found against him by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the landlord on this very allegation had filed an ejectment application earlier on October 24, 1970 which was decided against him by the Rent Controller on August 10, 1971 and a certified copy of the order is Exhibit R. 1, on the record. According to the learned counsel, the present application for ejectment was filed on September 3, 1974 and no new circumstances has been proved on the record so as to show that the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation during this period, that is, after the order of dismissal of the earlier application and the filing of the present ejectment application. The issuance of notice, Exhibit A. 1, dated July 19, 1974 by the Municipal Committee under Section 113/114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, does not relate to the shop, in dispute, as it relates to shop, bearing No. 1012. Apart from that, this notice was never issued by the Municipal Committee, as it never came up for consideration before the Municipal Committee and no resolution to that effect was ever passed. The Rent Controller has gone into the whole matter and has given very cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to prove that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Since the Appellate Authority has not discussed the reasons given by the Rent Controller, its finding is vitiated and should be interfered with in revision by this Court.;