SHADI SINGH versus RAKHA

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 726 · Decided: 23-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHADI SINGH 
v. 
RAKHA 
APRIL 23, 1992 
B 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 : 
Sections 13(3) (a) (iii), 13 (4}-Tenant-Eviction of-Building unsafe 
C and unfit for human habitation - Subsequently tenant effecting minor repairs 
making it fit for habitation- Pennissibility of- Eviction order- Validity of. 
The respondent landlord filed an application under section 13(3) (a) 
(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of 
the appellant-tenant on the ground that the building was required for 
D reconstruction since it became unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The 
rent Controller ordered eviction. On appeal, the District Court reversed 
the order of the Rent Controller and held that as the tenant had already 
carried out repairs, the shop became safe and habitable and therefore 
there was no need for evicition. On a Revision Application filed before it, 
E 
F 
the High Court,· reversed it and restored the order of the Rent Controller. 
Though the High Court accepted the finding that the repairs effected by 
the tenant were not exhaustive, it took the view that without recourse to 
section 12 which stipulated that an application to be made to the Rent 
Controller to. effect ordinary repairs, the tenant could not replace the 
fallen roof, and since a portion of the roof had fallen, the building became 
unfit for human habitation. 
Aggrieved against the High Court's order the appellant has 
preferred the present appeal, contending that by the subsequent replace-
ment of the roof by the appellant-tenant, the requirement of the building 
G by the landlord for effecting repairs did not exist at all. 
Allowing the appeal, this court, 
HELD :1.1. By subsequent replacement of the roof by the appellant, 
the requirement of the building to effect the repairs no longer subsisted. 
H This subsequent event was rightly taken note of by the appellate authority 
726 
... 
-
SHAD! SINGH v. RAKHA 
727 
and the High Court took a narrow view of the matter and wrongly reversed A 
the judgment of the appellate authority. The High Court having accepted 
the finding of the appellate authority that the tenant etTected repairs by . 
replacing the . faHen roof and made it safe and fit for habitation, the . 
requirement of the building for the same purpose no longer subsisted. It 
is settled law that all the provisions should harmoniously be read together B 
to give effect to them and should not be rendered otiose or surpluses. The · 
requirement of the building would be both to carry out building work as 
per the developmental scheme of the named authorities or where the 
building needs repairs or reconstruction when the existing one became 
unfit and usafe for human habitation. Otherwise there· is no power to the · 
Controller to order eviction though the building became unsafe· and unfit C 
for human habitation. The word 'requires' in section 13(3) (a)(iii) cannot 
be read in isolation, but in conjunction with sub-section (4) of section 13, 
w:..ich enjoins the landlord, after effecting repairs or reconstruction or 
structural alteration and making it safe. and fit for human habitation, to 
restitute the same to his erstwhile tenant. If he commits breach thereof, D 
the Controller has been invested with the power to pass an order in that 
behalf. (730 G-H; 731 A·D] 
1.2. In the instant case, there were five rooms in the building and the 
roof of one room alone had fallen and that the tenant had obtained orders 
of the Rent Controller under section 12, and thereafter the tenant replaced 
the roof. A tenant is under a statutory obligation to approach tl~e Control· 
ler and seek and order for effecting repairs provided the landlord refuses 
or neg~ects to effect repairs. After the Rent Controller posses an order, the 
tenant acquires right to effect repairs. In that event he is entitled to recover 
costs thereof from the rent payable under section 108(t) of the Transfer of 
Property Act. Even in the absence of a contract, tenant has unilateral right 
to effect repairs, when the landlord neglects to effect repairs l\'ithin a 
reasonable time; after notice the tenant has a right to effect the repairs 
and deduct the expenses with interest from the rent or otherwise recover 
it from the landlord. This right is hedged with an obligation to get an order 
from the Rent Controller. [732 F-H; 733 A, BJ 
Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Badri Prasad Seth; [1962] Supp. 3 
SCR

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