- (1.) RESPONDENT had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Act for short) seeking ejectment of the petitioner. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 23.5.2011 (Annexure P -1). The said order was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 4.10.2012 (Annexure P -3). Hence, the present petition by the petitioner tenant.
(2.) CASE of the landlord, in brief, was that the demised premises was required by him for his personal use and occupation. It was further prayed that the premises in question had been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In fact, the roof of the room had collapsed. School was being run by the petitioner only in one room.
(3.) PETITIONER , in its written statement, admitted the relationship between the landlord and tenant between the parties. The rate of rent was also admitted. It was averred that the demised premises was not required by the landlord for his own personal use and occupation and the building in question was fit and safe for human habitation. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal has held as under: - "11. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and after going through the record of the case, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal and as such the same deserves dismissal. In this case appellants have examined only one witness i. e. RW -1 Veeran Kaur, Centre Head Teacher, Government Primary Jubli School. The admissions made by her in her cross examination are sufficient to prove the case of the respondent. So far as the condition of the building is concerned, admissions made by this witness in her cross examination are re -produced as under: - It is true that roofs of the three and half rooms alongwith verandah in front thereof the demised premises as shown red column in the site plan Ex. Pl had collapsed due to its dilapidated condition and there was no roof over the same. Similarly roof of the remaining two rooms, bath room and toilet had collapsed due to its dilapidated condition and there was no roof on the said portion in the first week of July, 2005. When the roofs were not on the said demolished portion, the classes were conducted in open again said during the rains the classes were taken in one room only. The debris of the demolished portion was lying In the rooms on the spot and that is why the classes were taken in open. I do not remember if at that time the entire wood was ant eaten. It is true that at that time, the bricks used in the construction of walls had been effected by salt peter and started turning into powder. It is wrong to suggest that there was through and through cracks In the walls. The entire building requires to be pulled down and reconstructed and it cannot be made fit and safe for human habitation and residence even by extensive repairs." 12. The aforesaid statement of RW1 leaves no one in doubt about the condition of the demised premises. On the face of these submissions, it does not lie in the mouth of the learned Government Pleader that the demised premises is fit for human habitation. There was no need for the respondent landlord to examine building expert in this case. Had RW1 not made admissions as pointed out above then perhaps need for examining the building expert to prove dilapidated condition of the demised premises may have arisen but the admissions made by RW1 leaves no doubt in the mind of this court that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and is not fit for human habitation. Therefore, findings of the learned Rent Controller on issue no.4 stands affirmed. 13. So far as issue regarding personal necessity of the demised premises by the respondent landlord is concerned, there are certain admissions made by the witnesses of the appellant which proves bonafide need of the demised premises by the landlord. Those admissions are as follows: - It is true that the applicant alongwith his mother are presently residing In a portion consisting of one room only in H. No.4, New Adarsh Nagar, Ferozepur City as a licencee at the mercy of his parental grand father namely Harbans Singh and the legal heirs of his paternal uncle namely Gurbax Singh, who had expired on 21.06.2005. The present accommodation in occupation of the applicant is insufficient for his residence and on account of insufficiency of accommodation in the said house their often remains bickering between applicant and his mother on one side and legal heirs of Gurbax Singh paternal uncle of the applicant and Harbans Singh on the other side. It is true that the applicant requires the demised premises for his personal use and occupation as he has decided to shift to the building in question after reconstructing the same as per his requirements. 14. The aforesaid admissions on the part of RW1 are sufficient to prove the bonafide need of the demised premises by the respondent landlord.";