JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. By this common judgment both revision petitions bearing No. 713 and 755 of 1990 can conveniently be disposed of together.
2. Both the revision petitions have been filed by Ramji Dass Nirmohi landlord of the property in question assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dated 6.2.1990.
3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction seeking ejectment of the respondent from the property in question. The grounds of eviction taken were (i) non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month; (b) the respondent being nuisance to the occupier of the neighbouring building; (iii) the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the property; and (iv) that the disputed property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petition for eviction was contested by the respondent-tenant. He has tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month with costs and denied that he was a nuisance to the occupier of the neighbouring building or that he has impaired the value and utility of the property. It was denied that the disputed shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
4. Learned Rent Controller accepted the plea of the respondent that the rent is Rs. 20/- per month. The contention of the petitioner that respondent was a nuisance or that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the property were negatived or in other words the findings were against the petitioner. Regarding the same no dispute was raised in this Court. Learned Rent Controller, however, held that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and on this ground the order of eviction was passed. Appeal has been filed with the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. Learned Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller and held that it is not established that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. Hence, the present petition No. 775 of 1990.
5. After the petitioner had filed an application for eviction, the respondent also submitted an application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the act’) with the Rent Controller seeking permission to effect necessary repair of the roof of the shop on the plea that the petitioner has failed to do so and has threatened to dispossess him by demolishing the wall. The contention of the petitioner was that the roof is not repairable. It has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the contrary, he raised objection that the application was not maintainable.
6. Learned Rent Controller held that the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The application was filed after eviction petition was submitted by the petitioner-landlord. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. The respondent had preferred the appeal. The same was accepted. The finding that the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was rejected and the application of the respondent was allowed. Repairs were allowed to be effected but not exceeding Rs. 1.50/- which could be deducted from the rent.
7. On behalf of the petitioner, an application was filed for early hearing of the petition. The same was listed. But on the date so listed, non-appeared on behalf of the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings of the learned Appellate Authority alleging that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation because it is an old building.
9. The fact as to if the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation necessarily is to be established on the basis of evidence. Merely because the building is old is by itself not a fact to prompt the court to come to the conclusion that the building has become unfit and unsafe for, human habitation. On this score, the plea by itself must fail.
10. It was not in controversy that the respondent is in occupation of the disputed shop. Said property had been let sometime in the year 1965. When the application as such was filed for eviction or under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It has been told that the property had never been repaired.
11. The case of the respondent was that the petitioner has been threatening him to vacate the property otherwise he would forcibly dispossess him. The respondent alleged that few days before 15.7.1985 the petitioner demolished a portion of the shop. While doing so he created holes in the upper half of the back wall of the disputed shop. He damaged a part of the roof so that the shop may fall down. The respondent even filed a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from demolishing the shop. In the said suit, petitioner gave an undertaking that he will not demolish the shop. It is not in controversy that the first floor of the premises had fallen.
12. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner was placed on the fact when the first floor had fallen and a part of the roof had also crumbled, this shows that the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Herein one must in the outset states that where a particular property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation is a question of fact to be decided in each individual case. But as a broad principle the evidence must warrant the influence that falling down of the roof in one room only indicative of the weak condition of the entire building and the collapse of roof was not a localised event. It could not be concluded always that the entire building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Section 13(3)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, reads as under :-
(iii) that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the building or rented land, or”
13. It is abundantly clear that the legislature has used the expression has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is totally different from if it has been made unsafe and unfit for human habitation by the landlord. The expression has become would necessarily read that it should become unsafe and unfit for human habitation by natural wear and tear with the passage of time or may be with the act of God. If the landlord in order to seek eviction damaged the property by using physical force he, indeed, cannot make use of the expression that the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
14. As already pointed out, learned Appellate Authority rightly noted that when the landlord-petitioner wanted to damage the property and has made holes, the respondent has approached the civil court. But for the intervention of the Civil Court, the landlord would have damaged the property more. The petitioner-landlord has given an undertaking in this regard in the civil court. Some part of the back portion of the roof had been damaged. The respondent even on the fateful night when the property was damaged approached the police. The petitioner-landlord admitted that he was called to the police station. All these factors prompts one to conclude that the damage had been done at the behest of the petitioner and not that the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It has been noted that the walls had been intact and damaged portion of the roof could be repaired. There is no ground to interfere in the findings of the appellate authority.
15. In the petition for early hearing, it had been mentioned that more damage has occurred to the said property. Indeed, if it is so, the petitioner may file a fresh petition for eviction because after about 14 years of litigation it would be improper to start a de novo trial.
16. As regards the findings of the Appellate Authority, the same are based on evidence and are findings of the fact. Under sub-section (5) to Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, it requires no interference. There is no ground to hold that legality and propriety of the same is not in order.
17. For these reasons, the eviction petition must fail and is consequently dismissed.
