LexMAHARAJ JAGAT BAHADUR SINGH versus BADRI PRASAD SETH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
952 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] &UPP. 1962 :\IAHARAJ JAGAT BAHADUR SINGH Mmch ~O. v. BADRI PHASAD SETH (S. K. DAS, :\I. HwaYATlJI.LAII and ,J, C. SHAH, ,JJ.) llr.nt Control-Requiren11.nt of 1JO.SStss[o11 hy lan'l-lord for currying out repairs-Jl'hethet repairs can lu~ ejjectecl u·ithu11f evicting tenant-Pou:l'rs of the Hiyh Court i11- rccision-f.:a~t l'u11jab Urban Rent l!estriclion Act, 1.94.9 (Hast l'unj. J of l!iJ9), SS. JJ(J)(a), J;j(fi). Appellant landlord applied to the Rent Controller for eviction of the Respondent tenant on l.12.56 under s. 13(3) of the Punjab Crban Rent Ilestriction 1\ct for rcn1edying certain defects in the based building. The Municipal Commi- ttee on 11.4.57 issued an an1cndcd notice requiring only that the cracked pillar be reinforced so as to rnake it a solid blo'ck. Respondent carried out the repairs. On June 8, 195i, the Executive Engineer inspected again in compliance 'vith the order of the Rent Controller and \\·as satisf1ed that the pillar had been repaired satisfactorily. The Rent Co11trolltr held that the case fell withi11 s. 13(3j(a) of the Act at:d ordered eviction of the Respondent. On appeal the District Jud);e taking note of the state of repairs allo\\·ccl the appeal. 111 revision under s. 15(5) of the Act the High Court .Judge held that the po,,·crs of the lligh Court in revision \Vere sin1ilar to those under s. 115 of the Civil Proccd111e Code and that there \\·as no question of jurisdiction invo]vcd in 1hc case. J le, · ho,vevcr, affirmed the decision after considering the evidence. Held, that the powers of the High Court under s. 15(5) of the Act 'vcre manifestly ,vider than thOse under s. 115 of the Civil Procedure Co<lc an<l 'verc uot confined to questions of jurisdiction. That under s. 13(3)(a) the requirement of vacant possession by the landlord could only he for the purpose of carrying out such fundamental and extensive repairs as could not he carried out v.:ithout evicting the tcna11t and not for ininor repairs and that it was open to the.District Judge to consider the subsequent events upto the· time \\'hen eviction v:as ordered by the Controller in vi cw ef the .schcn1e and purpose of the legislation. CIVIL APPELLATE J URISDIC'rrox : Ci vii A pp ea I No. 340 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 953 and order dated May 21, 1958, of the Punjab High Court iu Rgvision Application No. 27 of 1958. M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of lndia, and J. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 1962. March 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS, J.-This is an appeal by speci1tl leave from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the . .l:'unjab High Court dated }fay :H, 1958, in Civil ttevision application No. 27 of 1958 of that Court. By that order the learned single Judge dismissed an application in revision ma.de by the appellant herein in the following circumstances. The appellant, ,1Jaharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh is the owner of the premises known as Ranzor Hall in Simla. The respondent, Badri Pras'.l<l Seth, is in occupation of the premises as a tenant and is running a cinema therein which is known as Hevoli theatre or Revoli cinema. 'l'he correspondence between the parties shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive Engineer, SimhL Provincial Division, inspected the cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and noted six defects, one of which was, to use the words of the Executive Engineer, "the right hand pillar of the screen has cracked and has gone out of plumb." The existence of these defects was communicated to the respondent and also to the Muncipal Commi- ttee, Simla. The respondent in his turn communi- cated. the existence of these defects to the appellant by a letter dated April 17, 1956. In that letter the respondent suggested· to the appellant that. the de- fect in the pillar should be removed before the beginn- ing of June, 1956, when the rains were likely to 1962 M(Jharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Badri Prasad Seth DasJ. J:Jfj2 .\tahar<Jj Ja&at Bahadur Si,igh v. Bad1i Prasad Seth nas J. 954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. commence. The respondent removed the other tfofects whil'h wero of a minor nature; but £lcttin~ no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.