The state of the premises is not an essential factor in determining whether a landlord can apply for ejectment under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. Rather, the essential factor is the desire of the landlord to rebuild.

Kapur, J.

1. This is a rule obtained by the landlord against an order of District Judge, J. S. Bedi dated 13-6-1953 refusing to grant the landlords prayer for ejectment of the tenant.

2. This case has rather an unfortunate history. On 21-1-1949 the landlord made an application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he needed the house for his personal use which was dismissed by the Bent Controller and this order was affirmed by the District Judge on I2-7-1949, but in this judgment the District Judga held that the requirement of the landlord for the purpose of reconstruction could not be urged in the appeal for the first time and that the landlord could make a fresh application.

3. On 15-10-1949 the landlord made a second application on the ground that he wanted to reconstruct the building. This application was dismissed on 11-4-1950 and on appeal being taken to the District Judge it was held that one of the walls of the building required repairs but that could be done without ejectment of the tenant and the order of refusal to eject was thus affirmed. The learned Judge in that case personally inspected the place and his inspection note is dated 22-8-1950 which has been placed on the record of this case by the landlord.

4. The tenant then made an application on 30-8-1950 for the wall being built and the Rent Controller Mr. Augustine ordered that the tenant could build the wall in question and deduct the cost thereof from the rent payable.

5. On an application of the tenant the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent on 22-5-1952 at Rs. 10/- per mensem.

6. On 21-8-1952 the landlord again made an application for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he wanted to rebuild the whole building which was in a damaged and dilapidated condition. Along with this application he filed a plan which he had got sanctioned from the Cantonment Board. The tenant pleaded that the landlord did not want the house to be rebuilt, that the house was not in a dilapidated condi- tion and he denied that any notice for the purpose of re-erection had been sent to the landlord by the Cantonment Board. He denied other allegations also. He further pleaded that the landlord had made several applications for his ejectment which had been dismissed and it had been held that the house was in such a condition that it did not require rebuilding and all that required reconstruction was the northern wall which had been ordered to be rebuilt by the Rent Controller. The tenant further stated that the landlord was a litigious person and had brought the application mala fide just to trouble the tenant. Several issues were raised before the Rent Controller and he found that the applicant needed the house bona fide for reconstruction. He discussed the evidence produced and held that the circumstances had changed. He also found that the conduct of the tenant amounted to nuisance and on thess grounds he ordered ejectment of the tenant.

7. An appeal was taken to the learned District Judge who once again inspected the spot ana found the northern wall of the house bulging out and it needed repairs badly. He also found that the shop below required repairs and there were depressions at one or two places. After arguments were heard, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the previous position had not actually changed, that only the northern wall required reconstruction and that could be done without ejectment of th3 tenant and therefore the application was barred by Section 14 of the Rent Restriction Act. (It appears that the learned District Judge erroneously said Section 13). With regard to the nuisance he found that it was not made a ground of attack and it was an afterthought and that it had not been a ground even in the previous application which is contrary to facts. He took into account the strained relations between the landlord and the tenant and peculiarly enough he was of the opinion that if the tenant had been responsible for nuisance he