Under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the landlord must plead and prove that he requires the premises for carrying out building work, in addition to the fact that the premises are unsafe or unfit for human habitation.

Prem Chand Pandit, J.

1. This is landlords revision petition against the decision of the appellant authority confirming on appeal the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her application for the eviction of the tenant.

2. Shrimati Raj Kumari owns the house in dispute which is situate in Ludhiana City. She had given its ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- to Shadi Lal, the first floor being occupied by herself. The landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act) on number of grounds, but we are, in the present revision petition, concerned with only one of them, namely, that the entire building was in a dangerous condition and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller, after discussing the evidence produced in the case, came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to establish that ground. He was of the view that building was repairable and could be set right. The ejectment application was, consequently, dismissed.

3. Aggrieved by that order, the landlord went in appeal before the appellant authority. He was of the opinion that although the landlord had pleaded that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, but she had not alleged anywhere in her application for ejectment that she required the same for rebuilding it. Her case was therefore, not covered by Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act and the tenant was not liable to be evicted. As a result of this finding, her appeal was dismissed. It might be mentioned that the Appellate Authority did not give a finding as to whether or not the premises in dispute, as a matter of fact, had become unfit or unsafe for human habitation. Against this decision, the landlord has come here in revision.

4-5 The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under the provisions 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, all that was necessary for the landlord to prove was that the tenanted premises had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and if that was done, the tenant was liable to eviction on that ground. It was not further obligatory for the landlord to allege and establish that he required the same for rebuilding it. In that connection, he referred to a Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Sant Ram v. Mekhu Lal, 1968 P.L.R. 195, (Delhi Section), where it was held that it was not necessary for a landlord, when applying for being put in possession of his building or rented land under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, to plead and establish that he required the same in order to carry out any building work.

6. This authority undoubtedly supports the petitioner but so far as this Court is concerned, it has taken a contrary view, first in a Single Bench decision by Falshaw, C.J. in Punna Lal v. Jagan Nath, 1963 P.L.R. 528, and then, subsequently, by a Division Bench in Chuhar Mal v. Balak Ram and others, 1964 P.L.R. 503. In Punna Lals case, it was observed that under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the landlord must plead and prove that he required the premises for carrying out building work and that was neither because of some order from the Government, local authority or improvement trust or else that the building had become unsafe or unfit for human. Similarly, in Chuhar Mals case, it was held that a landlord should be entitled to require the premises to be vacated, if in fact he wanted to re-erect them either because he was so required to do by a competent authority or because the premises were no longer safe or fit for human habitation. Sitting singly, I am bound by the Bench decision in Chuhar Mals case. Following the same, I would repell the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. It was then contended that even if it be held that the landlord had to allege and prove that he required the premises for rebuilding it, in addition to the fact that the premises were unsafe or unfit for human ha