RANJIT SINGH,J - (1.) BEING aggrieved against the order directing his ejectment by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court, the tenant has filed the present revision petition.
(2.) PETITIONER , Sat Parkash, is a tenant in the shop owned by Om Parkash Goyal. The landlord filed a petition seeking his ejectment from the shop situated within the municipal limits of Sangrur, with the allegation that the shop along with Chobara built thereon had fallen to his share in the family partition and, thus, he became exclusive owner of the demised premises, which had been let out to the petitioner tenant. The monthly rent is stated to be Rs. 34.40 paise and the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of arrears of rent from 1.4.1983 to 31.12.1983. In addition, it is also pleaded that the shop has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. As per the landlord the shop is an integral part of a bigger building consisting of two chobaras and one Parchhati built thereon. There is also a projection in front of his chobara and a staircase which was built on the Southern side of the shop in dispute for having ingress to the upstairs portion. It is pleaded by the landlord that 2/3rd portion of the roof of the back side of the chobara had fallen down and the remaining roof also was likely to fall. Its wall had also fallen down and remaining portion of chobara was also stated to be in dilapidated condition. So was the condition of the walls of the compound and Parchhati on the first floor. The pleadings also show that big cracks have developed and even the batons used in roof was eaten by the white ants. In regard to the shop, it is pleaded that the Western side of the same is in a bad condition and large number of bricks had fallen from the lower portion of the wall. The wall was stated to have bulged towards outer side and there were cracks in the wall of the shop and roof had become unsafe. The tenant appeared and tendered the rent on the first date of hearing. The petition was not contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the written statement the tenant-petitioner took a stand that the shop was taken on rent from one Babu Ram and the same had not fallen to the share of Om Parkash Goyal in the family partition and the same, if had fallen into his (Om Parkash Goyal ) share in family partition then he would not have any objection to accept him as his landlord. He, however, denied the allegation of shop being unsafe or unfit for human habitation. As per him it was an integral part of the chobara built thereon. The tenant further alleged that the back side of the chobara was demolished by the landlord himself in order to harass him. Besides, he also pleaded that on previous occasion also the petition was filed against the petitioner for his eviction from the shop on the same ground that it become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 31.10.1994. It was accordingly pleaded that the present petition would be barred by Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner had also pleaded that when the roof of the chobara was demolished, a large quantity of debris had fallen on the roof and he had accordingly filed a suit for removal of the same. The heap of debris, though, was removed but the suit was dismissed regarding the other reliefs in view of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Rent Act, under which alone the tenant could force the landlord to effect certain repairs. The petitioner had also denied that the walls of the open yard and Parchhati on the first floor had developed cracks or that the batons of the roof of front side Chobara have been eaten by white ants or were hanging down. The petitioner had further denied the allegation that if portion of the Western Wall of the shop had cracks. It is pleaded that the respondent-landlord along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed another petition against him on 22.2.1981 which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 29.7.1981 without getting permission to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. So according to the petitioner-tenant, the present petition was barred.
(3.) HAVING regard to the plea raised by the respective parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the petitioner is a landlord qua the respondent ? OPA. 2. Whether the premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA. 3. Whether the application is barred by the principles of res judicata ? OPR. 4. Relief. ;