Massa Singh Vs. Chaudhary Baru Mall Charitable Trust Dharamshala, Dhuri & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4329 of 1987.
Petitioner: Massa Singh
Respondent: Chaudhary Baru Mall Charitable Trust Dharamshala, Dhuri & Ors.
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4329 of 1987.
Judges: SABYASACHI MUKHARJI & S. RANGANATHAN,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 06, 1988
Head Note:
RENT LAW
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949:
Section 13(2)(iii) – Eviction – Tenant admitting in the written statement that the shop was a very old building and some material had fallen from walls obstructing the functioning of the shop and repairs were carried out – Held that this come within the mischief of section 13(2)(iii) – Judgment of the High Court upheld.
Petition dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This is a petition for leave to appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 9th April, 1987 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition while upholding the Order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in view of the provisions of Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The High Court, after considering all the facts, has come to a finding and observed as follows:
“The tenant himself stated in paragraph 5 of the written statement that some repairs were made in the shop with the consent of the landlord. The necessity according to him, had arisen because the shop was a very old building. Roofs and walls were about to fall. Some material had already fallen from the walls which obstructed the functioning of the shop. That being the plea taken by the tenant, the appellate authority found that the building being very old one, the construction of the Parchhati had definitely put weight on the walls thereby diminishing the value and utility of the building in question. Thus on the facts and circumstances of the cases, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the finding of the appellate authority.”
The aforesaid come definitely within the mischief of Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act in question.
2. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to interfere with the finding of the High Court. This special leave petition must fail and is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
1. This is a petition for leave to appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 9th April, 1987 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition while upholding the Order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in view of the provisions of Section 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The High Court, after considering all the facts, has come to a finding and observed as follows:
“The tenant himself stated in paragraph 5 of the written statement that some repairs were made in the shop with the consent of the landlord. The necessity according to him, had arisen because the shop was a very old building. Roofs and walls were about to fall. Some material had already fallen from the walls which obstructed the functioning of the shop. That being the plea taken by the tenant, the appellate authority found that the building being very old one, the construction of the Parchhati had definitely put weight on the walls thereby diminishing the value and utility of the building in question. Thus on the facts and circumstances of the cases, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the finding of the appellate authority.”
The aforesaid come definitely within the mischief of Section 13(2)(iii) of the Act in question.
2. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to interfere with the finding of the High Court. This special leave petition must fail and is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
