PRITPAL SINGH, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Om Parkash is occupying a shop consisting of two rooms on the ground floor and a chobara on the first floor at Morinda in district Ropar as a tenant of the respondent Parkash Chand. The latter applied for ejectment of the former under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') inter alia on the ground that the tenancy premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller accepted the ejectment application on this ground and ordered the eviction of the tenant. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ropar. Against the judgment of the Appellate Authority the instant revision petition has been filed by the tenant.
(2.) IT stands uncontroverted that a large portion of the roof of the chobara fell down on 26th of August, 1976 due to rains. The point for determination is whether in such circumstances the authorities below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the tenancy premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation so as to order eviction of the tenant. The learned petitioner's counsel has contended that the roof of the chobara can be replaced by the landlord and it cannot be said that due to the falling of the roof of the chobara the whole tenancy premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. There seems to be no merit in this contention. This Court held in Shri Madan Lal Kapur and others versus Shri Nand Singh, 1966 Cur. L.J. (Pb.) 772, that : "Whether a building is unsafe or unfit for human habitation is obviously a question of fact and indeed in the present case it is not disputed that a part of the building in question is unsafe for human habitation. The argument that only those rooms which are unsafe or unfit for human habitation may be got vacated and the landlord be asked to carry out the necessary repairs so as to make them safe and fit for human habitation, leaving the rest of the building with the tenant, seems to be wholly unacceptable on the language and scheme of the statute and on the general principles." There is no gain saying that in the present case the chobara on the first floor has become unfit for human habitation as its roof has caved in. The tenant cannot be heard to say that the landlord should replace the roof. The tenant also is not competent to urge that the rest of the tenancy premises be left with him. Once a part of the tenancy premises becomes unsafe or unfit for human habitation, the landlord is entitled to get the tenant evicted from the whole building in his occupation under Section 13 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act.
(3.) THE learned petitioner's counsel tried to take support from two judgments of this Court; one in Ved Parkash and another v. Khushi Ram and another (1973 RCR 252), 1973 All India Rent Control Journal 548, and the other in Dharam Pal v. Janki Nath Sharma, (1985(1) RCR 30), 1985(1) C.L.J. (C and Cr.) 62. I find that none of these two judgments is relevant to the present enquiry. In the case of Ved Parkash (supra), it was held that the replacement of a kacha part of the room by a new kacha part amounts to necessary repairs within the meaning and scope of section 12 of the Act and it is not a structural alteration. In the first place this judgment is under Section 12 of the Act and not under Section 13. The scope of these two sections is distinct and separate. Secondly, in the present case the roof of the chobara which has failed was not kacha and so its re;placement cannot be deemed to be necessary repairs of the tenancy premises. In Dharam Pal's case (supra) it was found as a fact that the roof of the tenancy premises had not fallen down but it was only leaking. In such circumstances it was considered a case of repairs and not of the premises having become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Thus, these judgments are of no assistance to the petitioner.;