B.S.YADAV,J - (1.) THIS fact leading to this revision petition are that the present respondent Jagdish Rai (who died during the pendency of this revision petition and whose legal representative, Bipin Kupar was brought on the record) had filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the present petitioner from a shop situated in Bhedaur. According to the allegations in the petition, the petitioner was a tenant in the shop in dispute since 23rd March, 1971 on a yearly rental of Rs. 700/-. The ejectment of the petitioner was sought on various grounds but the only ground that servives for adjudication in this revision petition is that the shop in dispute and the build up portion over it is in dilapidated condition and is unfit for human habitation and that he also requires the shop in dispute for construction a staircase for going on the roof of the shop as the stair-case which was earlier being used for that purpose had fallen to the share of his brother Kulwant Rai. The tenant-petitioner contested the ejectment petition and denied the allegations of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller held that the defects in the building were repairable and the shop on the ground floor had not been shown to be in any way unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The ejectment application was accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord filed an appeal which was heared by learned Appellate Authority, Barnala, who held that the building of which the shop was a part was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the landlord required the same bonafide for its reconstruction. He accordingly accepted the appeal and ordered ejectment of the tenant. The tenant has challenged that order by means of this revision petition.
(2.) BEFORE proceeding further it may be mentioned here that earlier there was a conflict between some judgments rendered by this Court. One view was that unless the portion demised to the tenant was itself unsafe and unfit for human habitation, he could not be ejected therefrom even though a substantial part of the integrated larger building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The other view was that where a larger building had become substantially unsafe or unfit for human habitation then the landlord had the right to get the whole of it including the demised premises vacated. This controversy was set at rest by a D.B. judgment of this court reported as Sardarni Sampuran Kaur and another v. Sant Singh and another, 1983 P.L.R. 449. The following question was referred to the Division Bench :- "Whether the ejectment of a person, who is a tenant of a demised premises which a part and parcel of a larger building can be ordered, to enable the landlady to reconstruct the dilapidated building if the other portion of the building which is in possession of the landlady is found to be unsafe for human habitation." The Division Bench answered the question as follows:- "To conclude the answer to the question posed in para 2 above is rendered in the affirmative and it is held that if the substantial part of the integrated larger building has become unsafe unfit for human habitation the tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof, under section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act despite the fact that the particular portion in his occupation may not be so." Thus the question to be seen in the present case is if a substantial part of the integrated larger building of which the demised premises with the petitioner is a part, has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. For appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I may give here the details of the whole building. The shop in dispute consists of four rooms situated at the back of one another. To the south of the shop, there is another shop said to be belonging to Kulawnt Rai, brother of the present landlord. On the first floor on the front two rooms of the shop in dispute and of the adjoining shop, there is a Chaubara. In front of it there is a cemented terrace and beyond it there was a room which was situated above the last hind room of the demised premises. Over part of the terrace adjoining the northern wall there was an over-bridge between the roofs of the front chaubara and hind chaubara. This over-bridge pacca passage and appears to have been constructed for going to the roof of the hind chaubara from the roof of he front chaubara. There is no dispute that both the storeys were built contemporaneously. Small bricks called Lahori or Nanak Shahi bricks were used in the construction of the building. Both the learned courts below have held that the demised premises have not become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. However, the fact remains that in the third room in the demised premises girders have been placed to give support to the roof, as is clear from the report Exhibit A/2 prepared by A.W.3 Shri Surinder Mohan Advocate, who had been appointed as Local Commissioner by the Rent Controller to inspect the premises. The petitioner's witness have further stated that from ground to roof level support had been given to those girders by placing bricks under them. Prem Nath tenant has also admitted that supports have been given to those girders. This fact clearly shows that the roof of that the room of the shop is in bad condition and is not falling because supports had been given to it.
(3.) HOWEVER , the main question that is to be determined is whether substantial part of the integrated building has become unsafe and unfit for habitation or not. There is no doubt upon the point that the whole building is an old one. On the first floor there are two chaubaras. One will be referred to as the front chaubara and the other one as hind chaubara. The petitioner has stated on oath that the roof of the hind chaubara had fallen during rains preceding the filing of the ejectment application. The tenant does not dispute the fact that the roof of the hind chaubara has fallen. In the witness-box the tenant has stated that the roof of the hind chaubara was removed by the landlord and Amar Nath (A.W. 2) about three years earlier in order to put pressure upon him to vacate the shop in dispute. In the written statement also this plea is taken in the alternative. It was pleaded that the landlord had demolished one of the chaubara mala fide in order to make a ground for ejectment. It was further stated that even if it was admitted that one of the chaubaras had fallen down due to heavy rain then it was due to deliberate omission on the part of the landlord as he did not repair that chaubara for sufficient long time. However, in the written statement it was not denied that the roof of the chaubara had fallen down during rains as alleged by the landlord in the ejectment application. A.W. 2 Amar Nath it was suggested that the roof of that chaubara had not fallen and, in fact, it was dismentted by him and the landlord as the former had apprehended that some damage might be caused to his property. From the various plans prepared by the experts examined by the parties and proved on the file it is clear that the property of Amar Nath (A.W.) is adjoining the building of the landlord towards east. The question that whether the roof of the hind chaubara had itself fallen or it was dismented by the landlord to prevent damage being caused to the building of Amar Nath is not very material. The fact remains that the roof of that chaubara was about to fall. The front walls of the hind chaubara have also been dismentled in parts as is clear from the report Exhibit R-1 prepared by R.L.4 Sat Dev Gupta, Retired Executive Engineer, examined by the tenant as an expert. This shows that the wall was also not in good condition and, therefore, had to be dismentled by the landlord. The over bridge passage has since fallen as is clear from Civil Misc. No. 4009-CII filed by the landlord. That petition was, in fact, filed by the landlord praying that the tenant be restrained from repairing the said demolition. Photographs have also been produced on the file in this court which depict that passage had fallen from one end. As noticed earlier, that passage was a pacca one. It was good luck of the tenant that the passage did fall as a whole otherwise there was likelihood of the roof of one of the rooms of the shop itself coming down.;