Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007
Date of Decision: 2.12.2008
Krishan Lal
...Petitioner
Versus
Nirmal Kumar
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K.Goel, Advocate
for the respondent.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
Krishan Lal, tenant, preferred a petition under Section 9 of the
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”), in which he prayed that he is tenant in the
building owned by Nirmal Kumar. Details and description of the building
were given in the head note of the petition. It was stated therein that the
premises have been taken on rent at a monthly rent of Rs.155/- along
with taxes. It was stated in the application that the house lack civic
amenities and public hygiene, therefore, a flush with water facility be
provided as petitioner was having open latrine on the roof which is not
cleaned daily. It was further stated therein that potable water is not
available and the drinking water is to be brought from outside. It was
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 2
further stated that on the eastern side of the house in question, a
sewerage line and water pipe has already been laid and all the nearby
houses are having facilities. Registered notice was issued to the
landlord calling upon him to provide the above said amenities. When
the landlord had not responded then the petition was filed in the Court
seeking the above said relief.
Landlord appeared. He filed reply and took a preliminary
objection that the application is not maintainable. However, relationship
of landlord and tenant was admitted. It was stated that house in question
was an old construction and the same was required to be re-built and no
facility as stated by the tenant have been provided by the Municipal
Corporation and the house was required by him for the use and
occupation of his brother.
Learned Rent Controller had framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the
facilities as claimed by him? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi
to file the present petition? OPR
3. Whether the petition of the petitioner is not
maintainable in the present form? OPR
4. Relief.
Tenant had examined PW.2 Amir Chand Taneja who proved
site plan Ex.P1 to show that the sewerage and water pipe line are
passing in the street in front of the house in question. He further stated
that these amenities have not been provided in the demised premises.
Landlord himself appeared as RW.1. He stated that when the
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 3
tenancy was created, these facilities were not available in the locality
and now the petitioner has no right to claim the same and the
construction of the house is very old and the same requires
reconstruction.
Learned Rent Controller believed the evidence led by the
tenant that there is open latrine on the roof and the amenities have
reached near the house in question. Learned Rent Controller further
held that sewerage and tap water facilities are essential amenities which
are required by every person. Therefore, tenant is entitled to the same
at the expenses to be incurred by him for providing such amenities and
such expenses incurred by the tenant would be deducted from the rent
payable by him to the respondent. In the relief clause, the following
conclusion was drawn by learned Rent Controller:-
“14. In view of my findings given herein above
on issue No.1 since the respondent has already
refused to provide the sewerage and tap water
facilities to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to
have the said amenities in the demised premises at
the expenses to be incurred by him for providing
amenities and the expenses incurred by him would
be deducted from the rent payable by him to the
respondent. Soon after the amenities have been
provided the petitioner shall immediately send the
details of the expenses incurred by him to the
respondent/landlord, so that said amount is
deducted from rent as per Section 9 of Haryana
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 4Urban Control of Ren and Eviction Act. Present
petition is allowed accordingly. Memo of costs be
prepared and file be consigned to the record room
after due compliance”.
Aggrieved against the same, landlord filed an appeal. Learned
Appellate Authority held that the tenant appearing as PW.1 has not
specified as to when he occupied the premises. It took into
consideration a reference in the cross-examination that the tenant
started residing in the premises about 25 years ago and at that time
also water and sewerage lines were existing in the locality. Taking this
fact into consideration, learned Appellate Court held that since at the
time of inception of tenancy, these amenities were available, and were
not provided now the tenant is precluded from the prayer that such
amenities ought to be provided. Learned Appellate Authority also relied
upon the cross-examination of PW.2 Amir Chand Taneja to hold that if
on the ground floor latrine is to be constructed then Chabutra and
enclosure is to be demolished as there is no place for construction of
latrine on the ground floor and also main hole of the sewerage line is
about 25′ to 30′ away from the house in question. It also took into
consideration that tenant has not obtained any estimate of expenses
likely to be incurred on the construction of latrine. It also took into
consideration that the rent is only Rs.155/- per month and if the order of
learned Rent Controller is upheld then for times to come, landlord will
be deprived of the rent.
To controvert this part of the findings of learned Appellate
Court, Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner,
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 5
states that he is ready to incur all expenses without any reimbursement
from the landlord.
At this stage, Mr. A.K.Goel, Advocate, appearing for the
landlord has made three fold submissions. He has stated that the
building is very old and it has become unfit for human habitation.
Secondly, it has been submitted that the premises are required for
personal use and occupation. It has been submitted that tenant wanted
to construct latrine on the ground floor and if same is permitted, it will
change the character of the building.
Repelling these arguments, Mr. Verma, in his all eloquence,
has submitted that on ground of personal necessity and building being
unfit for human habitation, eviction petition has been earlier filed by the
landlord and the landlord lost in that litigation before learned Rent
Controller and Appellate Authority. He further submits that now again
the landlord has filed another petition for eviction on the ground of
personal necessity and for enhancement of rent. Mr. Verma has further
stated that since the sewerage pipe is to be taken on first floor and in
the modern time, sufficient technology is available he will make the
bathroom on first floor and take sewerage line there, where there is a
provision of latrine.
In view of the submissions made by Mr. Verma that he will
incur the entire expenses at his own and will construct the latrine at first
floor, there is nothing that learned counsel for the landlord could say
contrary to dislodge the submissions made by Mr. Verma. Landlord will
be within his rights to pursue his remedy to seek eviction of tenant on
the ground of personal necessity or enhancement of rent for which he
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 6
has already initiated the proceedings. Section 9 of the Act reads as
under:-
“9. Landlord to provide certain amenities –
(1) If the amenities of electricity, sewerage or
tap water supply have been made available in any
locality by the State Government or a local authority,
the tenant of the building or rented land of such
locality shall be entitled to the enjoyment thereof
subject to the provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) If the landlord at the written request of the
tenant fails to agree in writing to provide all or any of
the amenities within a period of thirty days or fails to
provide the same within a period of ninety days of
such request, the tenant may apply to the Controller
for that purpose. The Controller may, on such
application by the tenant and after such enquiry as
he may deem fit, permit the tenant to have such
amenity at the cost of the landlord on such
conditions as he may deem proper. The tenant shall
be entitled to deduct the expenses incurred by him
in providing the amenity from the rent payable to the
landlord till the full amount is realized.
Provided that the rate of deduction of such
expenses shall not exceed fifty per centum of the
amount of rent.
Provided further that the Controller may
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 7reject the application if he is satisfied that such an
order will cause undue hardship to the landlord,
keeping in view his source of income, or would
involve expenditure incommensurate with the benefit
sought to be achieved.
(3) The Controller may fix the extent and
specifications of the amenity as far as possible
keeping in view the circumstances of the case and
also the estimated cost thereof.
(4) After the amenity has been provided, the
tenant shall immediately thereafter send the details
of the expenses incurred by him to the landlord.
(5) In case of dispute as regards the quantum
of the amount spent for providing the amenity, the
same shall be decided by the Controller after
enquiry on an application made to him.
(6) The landlord shall be entitled to enhance
the rent of the building or the rented land to the
extent of eight per centum per annum of the amount
spent for providing such amenity from the date the
amenity is provided.
Provided that where the tenant has initially
incurred the expenses for providing such amenity,
the enhancement of rent shall not be allowed till the
amount spent by the tenant has been realized”.
The request made by the tenant is in consonance with the
Civil Revision No. 4136 of 2007 8
object of Section 9 for which the same was enacted. In the modern
times, civic amenities and public hygiene cannot be denied to the tenant
on the ground that he must yield to pressure and vacate the premises.
Potable water is essential for day-to-day living so is the sewerage.
Therefore, the findings of learned Rent Controller are justified and are in
consonance with the modern days’ needs. Therefore, the findings of
learned Rent Controller are upheld. The judgment of learned Appellate
Authority is set aside. Taking into consideration submissions and prayer
made by Mr. Verma, counsel for tenant as noticed above, the judgment
of learned Rent Controller is modified to the extent that the sewerage
pipe shall be taken to the first floor where there is provision for the
latrine and all expenses incurred by the tenant for laying the water pipe
and sewerage pipe shall be borne by tenant himself and will not be
reimbursed by the landlord.
With these observations, the present revision petition is
disposed off.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
December 2, 2008
“DK”