PIARA LAL versus KEWAL KRISHAN CHOPRA

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 06-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PIARA LAL 
v. 
KEWAL KRISHAN CHOPRA 
MAY 6, 1988 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
c 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949: Section J3(3)(a) 
(iii)-Tenant-Eviction of-On ground premises became unsafe and 
unfit for human habitation-Falling down of roof.. in one room-
Whether sufficient for a declaration building unsafe and unfit for human 
habitation. 
The suit premises consisted of four room• in the ground floor 
where the appellant-tenant was running his office. Oue room in the 
first floor was in the possession of the landlord-respondent. The roof 
of one room in the rear side of the leased portion had fallen down, and it 
D has been replaced by the appellant after obtaining orders of the Rent 
Controller under Section 12 ofthe East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction 
Act, 1949. 
The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of bona 
fide requirement of the premises for his own use and occupation, and 
E change of user of the premises by the tenant. As he failed before the 
Rent Controller, he preferred an appeal and during the pendency of the 
appeal he obtained the court's order and amended the petition and 
raised an additional ground under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, seek-
ing eviction of the tenant on the ground that the I.eased premises had 
become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Appellate Autho-
F 
rity called for a findings on this additional ground from the Rent 
Controller and the finding went against the landlord. The Appellate 
Authority concurred with the Rent Controller on the said finding and 
dismissed the appeal. 
The respondent preferred a Civil Revision Petition before the 
G High Court which sustained the case, and ordered the eviction of the 
appellant under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The High Court came to 
the finding that the falling down of the roof of one of the rooms afforded 
by itself a cause of action to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant 
under the said section, and the said cause of action would subsist even if 
the tenant had repaired the roof under orders of the Rent Controller 
H under Section 12 of the Act., 
202 
l 
PIARA LAL v. K.K. CHOPRA 
203 
In the appeal to this Court by the tenant it was contended that the 
Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had concurrently found 
that the building was neither unsafe nor unfit for human habitation and 
as such the High Court was not justified in interferring with those 
findings especially when they were fmdings of fact. On behalf of the 
respondent, the appeal was contested on the ground that the falling 
down of the roof in a room was indicative of the damage condition of the 
building and, therefore, the High Court was fully justified in ordering 
eviction, and that the replacement of the roof by the appellant would 
not extinguish the right which had accrued to the respondent under 
Section 13(3)(a)(iii) to seek recovery of the possession of the leased 
premises. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The High Court was not justified in allowing the 
revision and directing eviction of the appellant under Section 13(3) 
(a)(iii). [206H] 
2. The High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that 
the falling down of the roof in one room was itself sufficient to warrant a 
finding that the entire building had become unfit and unsafe for human 
habitation and called for a declaration to that effect. [207F] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
In the instant case, the admitted position was except for the 
E 
roof in one of the.rooms falling down, no other damage to the building 
was noticed and in such circumstances, there is no scope for holding 
'that a substantial or major part of the building had become unfit and 
unsafe for human habitation and hence an order of eviction was. called 
for. [208G-H] 
3. The High Court had wrongly assumed that besides the falling 
down of the roof, one of the walls has also crumbled. This assumption 
was a mistaken one because the expert witnesses examined during the 
trial by the parties have spoken about the good condition of three walls 
alone of the room and not the fourth because they are the outer walls of 
F 
the room while the fourth wall was a common wall for the room in G 
question, and the adjoining room and hence there was no need to certify 
its good condition. [20SE-F] 
4. The High Court had also failed to notice two factors of rele-
vance: viz. (I) that the respondent had given his consent to the Rent 
Controller granting permission under Sect

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.