Judgment

K.RAMASWAMY, J. - The respondent, landlord, laid the application under S. 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short the Act for ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises alleging that the building required for reconstruction, since it became unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller by his order dated March 5, 1973 directed eviction of the appellant. On appeal, the District Court (Appellate Authority) by judgment dated May 7, 1975 reversed it and held that as the appellant had already carried out repairs the shop became safe and habitable and so the need for ejectment no longer subsists. The eviction petition was dismissed. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its judgment dated Sept. 19, 1980 in Civil Revision No. 958 of 1975 allowed the revision and restored the order of the Rent Controller. Thus this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. In the Petition, the respondent pleaded that the demised premises is a shop and most of the roof had already fallen and the remaining part may fall at any time; the flooring has given way and the walls were crumbling. Therefore, the premises required reconstruction. The appellate authority, as final court of fact, appreciated the evidence and held that the report of the Nazir Richpal Singh shows that out of five, two khanas (columns) of the roof had fallen down and that three require replacement of few batons. He also found that no portion of the wall had fallen down and that the appellant did not repair by any addition to the roof. The appellant had carried out replacement of that part of the roof which had fallen down and no more. It amounts to minor repairs and not reconstruction of the shop or structural alteration thereof. It pointed out that S. 12 of the Act, gives right to a tenant to seek permission of the Controller to effect ordinary repairs but he has no right to effect reconstruction or structural alteration of the building. The repairs effected by the appellant were not extensive. The High Court accepted these findings. Nonetheless it took the view that the tenant, without taking recourse to S. 12, cannot replace the fallen roof. The cause of action arose under S. 13(3)(a)(iii) cannot be defeated by unilateral action of the appellant. After the back portion of the roof of the shop had fallen it had become unfit for human habitation. In that view the appellant was held liable to be evicted. Accordingly allowed the revision.

3. The question is whether the High Court is right in law in reversing the judgment of the appellate authority. S. 13 of the Act gives right to the landlord to seek-eviction of a tenant. Clause (a)(iii) of sub-s.(3) reads thus :

"In the ease of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Govt. or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation."

Sub-sec. (4) further obligates on effecting reconstruction or repairs that "where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building or rented land in pursuance of an order..... under sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a), puts that building to any use or lets it to any tenant other than the tenant evicted from it, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of such building or rented land and the Controller shall make an order accordingly". Section 12 gives right to a tenant to effect necessary repairs, thus :

"If a landlord fails to make the necessary repairs to a building other than structural alterations, it shall be competent for the Controller to direct an application by the tenant, and after such inquiry as the Controller may think necessary, that such repairs may be made by the tenant, and that the cost thereof may be deducted from the rent which is payable by him."

The scheme of t