The leaking roof did not make the building unsafe and unfit for human habitation, and therefore, the tenant was not liable to be ejected under Section 13 of the Act.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2116 and 2117 of 1984 as the questions involved therein are common.

2. Dharam Pal is the landlord of the demised premises which consist of a shop, whereas Janki Nath Sharma is the tenant under him. Janki Nath Sharma tenant filed an application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) for getting the necessary repairs made by the landlord on 23rd October, 1979, whereas the landlord (Dharam Pal) filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of his tenant on 20th December, 1979. Both the authorities below have allowed the application filed on behalf of the tenant under Section 12 of the Act, while the application for ejectment under Section 13 of the Act filed on behalf of the landlord has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 2116 of 1984 arises out of the application under Section 12 of the Act and Civil Revision No. 2117 of 1984 has arisen out of the ejectment application filed by the landlord.

3. It is the common case of the parties that earlier the landlord filed an application for the ejectment of his tenant on 4th November, 1970 (copy Exhibit R-3), whereas the tenant also moved an application under Section 12 of the Act on 27th October, 1970 (copy Exhibit R-6) in Civil Revision No. 2117 of 1984. The ground for ejectment pleaded in the application under Section 13 of the Act was that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Both the applications were compromised by the parties. By virtue of the said compromise, the rent of the premises was enhanced from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 100/- per mensem. Consequently, both the applications were dismissed.

4. Now in the ejectment application, it has been found as a fact by both the authorities below that the roof has not fallen down. It is very much there but is leaking. That is why only repairs have been allowed and not replacement. Similarly, in the application under Section 12 of the Act, the learned Rent Controller has found that the roof in question needs repairs as the same leaks during the rainy reason and the landlord has failed to do the same needful. In view of these findings, as observed earlier, the application filed on behalf of the tenant was allowed, whereas the application filed on behalf of the landlord was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed these two petitions in this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord contended that the tenant himself in his application under Section 12 of the Act admitted that the roofs of the tenanted premises being old and having been ignored by the landlord to carry out the necessary repairs, needed immediate necessary repairs and that the floors of the shop also, it has been stated that the landlord be directed to re-roof the roofs of the tenanted premises and make necessary repairs thereof. According to the learned counsel these averments show that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the findings of the authorities below are wrong and illegal. In support of his contention, reference was made to Jagdish Chand etc. v. Mst. Bachni Devi, 1980 C.L.J.(Civil) 490, Gurdeep Singh v. Smt. Harjeet Kaur and another, 1982(1) RCR 407, and Bhagwanti v. Yasodha Devi, 1980(1) R.L.R. 573. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Balbir Singh v. Hari Ram, AIR 1983 Pb. & Hry. 132, to contend that it was a case of repairs and not that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to the learned counsel, both the provisions are independent of each other. It was further contended that it had been concurrently found by both the authorities below that it was a case of repairs and not that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, and therefore, it being a findi