Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Badri Prasad Seth

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 and order dated May 21, 1958, of the Punjab High 1962 Court iu Rgvision Application No. 27 of 1958. M(Jharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N. v. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the Badri Prasad Seth 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 DasJ. 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 J:Jfj2 commence. The respondent removed the other .\tahar<Jj Ja&at tfofects whil'h wero of a minor nature; but £lcttin~ no Bahadur Si,igh reply from the appellant, he again wrote to him

v. on September l i, 1956, and asked him to take early Bad1i Prasad Seth

steps to repair the pillar to a void any mishap. The nas J. n·spo11dent also intimated to the appellant tha.t tho

cost of repairs to the pillar was likely to be in the 11cighbourhood of Rs. 5000/-. The appellant took no actiun in tho matter for some time. On Septum ber 2'!, Hl56 the East Punjab Crban Rent Restri<:tiou Act, 19-!9 (East Punjab Act Xo. Ill of l!J4!J) (here-inafter referred to as the Act) was amended aud a elauso was inserted ins. 13(3)(a) thereof which entitled the landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directiug the tenant to put the land-lord in possession in the case of any building if he required it to carry out any building work at tho instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if the building had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. On April !I, 1956, the appellant wrote to the !:'resident, Simla :IIunicipa.l Committee, a.sking him to get the pillar in the Rauzor Hall inspected by the Executive Engineer in order to have his oprniou whether tho pillar was really iu a dangerous condition and required any action on the part of the )luniuipal Committee under s. llf, of the Punj1ib ~Iunieipal Act, l!Jll (Punjab Act III of 1911).

On Oetobtl!' :JO, 1956, the Secretary, i\[unicipal Committee, Simla, wrote to the respondent about tho defect in respect· of the right hand pill1ir of the screen and required the respondent by means of a notice to do the repairs within fifteen days of the receipt of tho notice. The Secretary issued tho notice perponing to act under ss. 113 and .114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 191 I. It appears that. the :IIunicipal Committee had the pillar inspected again in November, 1956, by the -Executive Engineer, Simla Central Division. This time the Ex:ecn-1962 tive Engineer suggested that the two end walls t! aharoj J agat (pillars) snpporting the beams for the screen were Bahadur Singh cracked aml therefore must be replaced by thicker v. Badri Prasad Seth walls. The Municipal Committee considered this "report and" came to the conclusion that as a precau-Das J. tionary measure what was necessary was to fill the doorway in the pillar with masonry so that the whole might become a solid block. On April 11, 1957, the Municipal Committee wrote to the appel-lant asking the latter to fill the doorway with masonry so that tbe whole pillar might become a solid block. This was in modification of the earlier notice wlrich had suggested more extensive repairs to the pillar. But before April 11, 1957, when the new notice from the Municipal Committee was recei-ved, the appellant had already made an application on December 1,1956, under s. 13 of the Act praying for an order from the Controller directing the re~­ pondent to put the appellant in possession of the property on the ground that the appellant required the l:iuilding for replacing the end walls supporting the beams of the screen by thicker walls. This appli-cation was contested by the respondent mainly on the ground that the appellant's claim was not bona fide and that the appellant did not really require the building to be vacated for the purpose of mak-ing the repairs to the pillar in question.

The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the case was fully covered by cl. (iii) of s.13 (3)(a) of the Act inasmuch as on the evidence on the record it was established that the appellant required the building: to carry out the necessary building work which the Municipal Committee, Simla, had directed to be done. There was an appeal from the order of the Rent Controller to the Distriet Judge who was the relevant appellate authority under s.15 of the Act. The learned Dis-trict Judge came to the conclusion that the noticeA under ss. 113 and 114 of the Punjab Municipal 19G2 Act., I!ll I, had been manipulated by the landlord MaJ.arai .lotat after the amendment made in s. t:l of the Act on /Jahad11r Sm.t:h Scptrmbcr 24, 19:i6, and that the appellai1t did

v.

d1i P1a;(ld Scih not bon11 fide require the building for carrying out

th~ repairs iil queRtion. The lcarnrd District. ,Judge pomterl out that. on April 1 I, l B:ii the i\lunicipal Committee had asked the landlord to fill the dou1 - way with masonry so that the whole mi!!ht become a solid block and though the )funicipal Comn:ittee had modified its earlier requirement of thicker walls by means of a notice after the filing of the appli0a-tion by the appellant, it was open to the Court to take into consideration facts which had come into cxistancc after the filing of the application. He also pointed out that the evidence oft.he Executive EnginAPI', Central P.W.D., showed that he inspecti>d the building on .Tune 8, I 957, in tho compliance with the directions of the Court and was satisfied that the pillar had been satisfactorily repaired. In this view of the matter the learned District .Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the application. Th~n, there was an application in revision under s. lii(•'i) of the Act to the High Court. This application was dealt with by K. L. Gosain, .J. who wrongly prn?Ceded on the footing t~at the appli.c~­ tion in rev1s10n was one under s. ii:>, Code of C1v1l Procedure. Though the learned Judge said that he had "one through the evidence and agreed with the findi~as arrived at by thn District Judge, he came to tho 0 conclusion that as no question of jurisdiction was involved within the meaning of s.115, Cod!l of Civil Procedure, he saw no reasons to interfere and dismissed thn application in revision. The present appeal is direct.id against this order of the learned smgle Judge.

Tho learned Attorney .General who appeared on behalf of the appellant has rightly pointed out that the learned J udgo of tho High Court was in error in disposing of the case as though the applica-J96!t tion in revision made to the High Court was an ,1-fah~,rof Jagat application under s. 115, Code of Civil Procedure. 8'Jlladur .. Singh The application was really an application under Bodri Prasad Seth s. 15(5) of the Act which is in these terms :