Holding

A landlord’s right to evict under s.13(3)(a)(iii) ceases once the tenant has repaired the premises, making it safe and fit for habitation, rendering the eviction order invalid.

Summary

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging the premises were unsafe and required reconstruction. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the District Court reversed, finding that the tenant had replaced the fallen roof, rendering the building safe and fit for habitation. The High Court reinstated the eviction order, holding that the tenant could not replace the roof without first obtaining an order under section 12. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that once the tenant effected the necessary repairs, the landlord's requirement for the building ceased, and the eviction provision could not be invoked; the High Court’s reversal was erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the eviction petition dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act when the tenant has repaired the building making it safe.
Whether the tenant must obtain an order under section 12 before effecting repairs to defeat the landlord's right to evict.
The proper interpretation of the word "requires" in s.13(3)(a)(iii) in conjunction with s.13(4).
Whether subsequent events, such as tenant's repairs, can nullify the landlord's ground for eviction.

Legislation cited

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949s. 12, s. 13(3)(a)(iii), s. 13(4)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 108(t)

Subjects

evictionlandlord-tenantbuilding unsafehabitabilitysection 13section 12repairssubsequent eventsrent restriction act

Judgment

A SHADI SINGH
v.
RAKHA

APRIL 23, 1992

B [N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 :

Sections 13(3) (a) (iii), 13 (4}-Tenant-Eviction of-Building unsafe
C and unfit for human habitation - Subsequently tenant effecting minor repairs
making it fit for habitation- Pennissibility of- Eviction order- Validity of.

The respondent landlord filed an application under section 13(3) (a)
(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of
the appellant-tenant on the ground that the building was required for
D reconstruction since it became unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The
rent Controller ordered eviction. On appeal, the District Court reversed
the order of the Rent Controller and held that as the tenant had already
carried out repairs, the shop became safe and habitable and therefore
there was no need for evicition. On a Revision Application filed before it,
E the High Court,· reversed it and restored the order of the Rent Controller.
Though the High Court accepted the finding that the repairs effected by
the tenant were not exhaustive, it took the view that without recourse to
section 12 which stipulated that an application to be made to the Rent
Controller to. effect ordinary repairs, the tenant could not replace the
fallen roof, and since a portion of the roof had fallen, the building became
...
F unfit for human habitation.

Aggrieved against the High Court's order the appellant has
preferred the present appeal, contending that by the subsequent replace-
ment of the roof by the appellant-tenant, the requirement of the building
G by the landlord for effecting repairs did not exist at all.

Allowing the appeal, this court, -
HELD :1.1. By subsequent replacement of the roof by the appellant,
the requirement of the building to effect the repairs no longer subsisted.
H This subsequent event was rightly taken note of by the appellate authority
726
SHAD! SINGH v. RAKHA 727

and the High Court took a narrow view of the matter and wrongly reversed A
the judgment of the appellate authority. The High Court having accepted
the finding of the appellate authority that the tenant etTected repairs by .
replacing the .faHen roof and made it safe and fit for habitation, the .
requirement of the building for the same purpose no longer subsisted. It
is settled law that all the provisions should harmoniously be read together B
to give effect to them and should not be rendered otiose or surpluses. The ·
requirement of the building would be both to carry out building work as
per the developmental scheme of the named authorities or where the
building needs repairs or reconstruction when the existing one became
unfit and usafe for human habitation. Otherwise there· is no power to the ·
Controller to order eviction though the building became unsafe· and unfit C
for human habitation. The word 'requires' in section 13(3) (a)(iii) cannot
be read in isolation, but in conjunction with sub-section (4) of section 13,
w:..ich enjoins the landlord, after effecting repairs or reconstruction or
structural alteration and making it safe. and fit for human habitation, to
restitute the same to his erstwhile tenant. If he commits breach thereof, D
the Controller has been invested with the power to pass an order in that
behalf. (730 G-H; 731 A·D]

1.2. In the instant case, there were five rooms in the building and the
roof of one room alone had fallen and that the tenant had obtained orders
of the Rent Controller under section 12, and thereafter the tenant replaced E
the roof. A tenant is under a statutory obligation to approach tl~e Control·
ler and seek and order for effecting repairs provided the landlord refuses
or neg~ects to effect repairs. After the Rent Controller posses an order, the
tenant acquires right to effect repairs. In that event he is entitled to recover
costs thereof from the rent payable under section 108(t) of the Transfer of
Property Act. Even in the absence of a contract, tenant has unilateral right
F
to effect repairs, when the landlord neglects to effect repairs l\'ithin a
reasonable time; after notice the tenant has a right to effect the repairs
and deduct the expenses with interest from the rent or otherwise recover
it from the landlord. This right is hedged with an obligation to get an order
from the Rent Controller. [732 F-H; 733 A, BJ G

Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Badri Prasad Seth; [1962] Supp. 3
SCR 952, Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, [1988) 3 SCC 51, relied on.

2. It is settled law that subsequent e".e.nts can be taken note of and H
71.S SUPREME COURT REPORTS (191J2] 2 S.C.R.

A the relief could be moulded suitably. Therefore, the appellate authority is
well justified in its conclusion that the cause of action for eviction of the
appellant no longer subsisted after the tenant effected repairs and
replaced that part of the fallen roof and the order of eviction, thereafter
became unnecessary. [733 H; 734 A, B]

B Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. Raghunatli Prasad, [1981] 3 SCR 605; Mis.
Variety Emp<?rium v. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, [1985] 2SCR102,.relied
on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2945 of.
1980.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.1980 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 958 of 1975. ~

A.K. Goel for the Appellant.
D S.M. Ashri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. The respondent, landlord, laid the application
E 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 direc~ed eviction of the appellant. On appeal,
the District Court (Appellate Authority) by judgment dated May 7,. 1975
F 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 logef
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 an_d.rcstored the order of the Rent Controller.
G Thus this appeal by special leave under Art.136 of the Constitution of
India.

In the Petition, the respondent pleaded that the demised premises is
a shop and most of the roof had already fallen and tlie remaining part may
fall at any time; the flooring has given way and the walls were crumbling.
H Therefore, the premises required reconstruction. The appellate authority,
SHADI SINGH v. RAKHA [RAMASWAMY, J.] 729

as final court of fact, appreciated the evidence and held that the report ~f A
the Nazir Richpal Singh shows that out of five, two khanas (columns ) of
the roof had fallen do'Ml 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 appe.llant bad
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
B
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 c
the tenant, without talking 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 it allowed the D
revision.

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

"In the case 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 F
human habitation."

Sub-section (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 G
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 ord'er accordingly". Section 12 gives right to a tenant to effect necessary
repairs, thus : H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A "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 on 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."
B
The scheme of the Act in this behalf adumberates that it is the
obligation of the landlord to keep the building in fit and habitable condi-
tion. If he fails to make the necessary repairs to the building other than
reconstruction or structural alteration, the tenant has been given a right
C under s.12 to make an application to the Rent Controller, who after making
such enquiry as he may think necessary, is empowered and shall be
competent to pass an order directing the tenant to effect necessary repairs.
The costs expended thereof may be deducted from the rent payable to the
landlord. The landlord, equally, is entitled under s.13(3)(a)(iii) to seek
D eviction of the tenant from any building if the landlord requires it to carry
out building work pursuant to the notice issued by the Govt., local
authorities or Improvement Trust under some improvement or devlopment
scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. On
reconstruction or effecting repairs by the landlord, he is enjoined to
restitute the evicted tenant into possession of the building. Under sub-s.
E (4) of s.13 it shall be mandatory for the Rent Controller to make an order
in that behalf, despite the landlord himself makes use of the building or
lets it out to any other tenant and puts a new tenant in possession of the
evicted building.

F Shri Goel, learned counsel for the appellant with thorough prepara-
tion and neat presentation of the case, argued that on the date of filing an
application for eviction the building was unsafe and unfit for human
habitation due to fall of roof from two khanas. By subsequent replacement
of them by the appellant, the requirement of the building to effect the
G repairs no longer subsisted. This subsequent event was rightly taken note
of by appellate authority and the High Court took narrow view of the
matter and wrongly reversed the judgment of the appellate authority. We
find force in the contention. The High Court having accepted the fmding
of the appellate authority that the tenant effected repairs by replacing the
fallen roof and made it safe and fit for habitation, the requirement of the
H building for the same purpose no longer subsisted. Whether the repairs
SHADI SINGH v. RAKHA [RAMASWAMY, J.] 731

effected by the tenant at its own cost without talcing recourse to s.12, would A
alter the situation? Our answer is no. It is settled law that all the provisions
should harmoniously be read together to give effect to them and should
not be rendered otiose or surpluses. It is difficult to give acceptance to the
contention of Sri Harbans Lal, learned senior counsel for the respondent,
that the verb 'requires' in s.13(3)(a)(iii) would be applicable to the first
part, namely to carry out any building work. It also would encompass of
the building which became unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The
requirement of the building would be both to carry out building work as
per the developmental scheme of the named authorities or when the
building needs repairs or reconstruction ·when the existing one became
unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Otherwise there is no power to the c
Controller to order eviction though the building became unsafe and unfit
for human habitation. The word 'requires' cannot be read in isolation, but
in conjuction with sub-s. (4) of s.13 Sub-section (4) which enjoins the
landlord, after effecting repairs or reconstruction or structural alteration
and making it safe and fit for human habitation, to restitute the same to D
his erstwhile tenant. If he commits breach thereof, the Controller has been
invested with the power to pass an order in that behalf. The acceptance of
the respondent's contention that the requirement of the building would be
only for reconstruction or structural alteration but it would not apply when
the building b~came unsafe or unfit for human habitation, operates as an
escape route to enforce compliance of sub-s.( 4) of s.13 rendering the later E
clause otiose and the tenant though was evicted on that ground remains
remediless. Such a construction is impermissible.

In Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh v. Badri Prasad Seth, [1962} Supp. 3
SCR 952 the respondent was running a cinema theatre known as Rivoli. F
The Municipal Commissioner Shimla noted some defects and directed the
appellant to remove the defects in the theatre. The appellant sought for
eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground that the building became
unsafe and unfit for habitation. The Rent Controller directed eviction. The
District Judge, on appeal, came to the conclusion that the appellant
manipulated the notice to have the tenant evicted. The repairs could be G
effected without ejecting the tenant. On revision, the High Court confirmed
it. This court on further appeal held that s.13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act attracted
only when the building work is such that the landlord requires that the
building be vacated by the tenant in order to carry out the work. In other
words, the repairs needed are so extensive and fundamental in character H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.
i
A that they cannot be carried out if the tenant remians in possession. Then
only it can be said that the la~dlord requires the bt,Iilding to carry out the
building work. On the facts in that case it was held that repairs to be
effected did not require eviction of the tenant. In Piara Lal v. Kewal
Krishan Chopra, [1988] 3 SCC 51 the facts found were that out of five rooms
only the roof of one room in the rear side had fallen down and needed
B replacement.An application under s.12 of the Act was filed and the order
by the Rent Controller in that behalf was obtained,. On those grounds the
question arose whether s.13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act would get attracted. This
court held thus :

c "It is true that a roof of one of t.he rooms on the rear side had
fallen down and required replacement but there was no
evidence whatever that the entire building or a substantial
portion of it was in a damaged condition and consequently the
building as a whole had become unfit and unsafe for human
habitation. Unless the evidence warranted an interference that
D
the falling down of the roof in one room was fully indicative of
the damaged and weak condition of the entire building and that
the collapse of the roof was not a localised event, we fail to see
how the High Court could have concluded that the entire
building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In
E fact, the appellant bad replaced the roof only at a cost of about
Rs.200 and this would independently show that the damage that
bad occurred could not have been of a serious or disquieting
nature."

F It is true as contended by Shri Harbans Lal that in that case there
were five rooms and the roof of one room alone had fallen and that the
tenant had obtained orders of the Rent Controller under s.12, and there-
after the tenant replaced the roof. It is sought to be contended that by
unilateral act of the tenant effecting repairs, the right of the landlord for
G eviction under s.13(3)(a)(iii) was frustrated and it could not be permitted
to be done. Normally it would be so. A tenant is under a statutory
obligation to approach the Controller and seek an order for effecting
repairs provided the landlord refuses or neglects to effect repairs. After
the Rent Controller passes an order, the tenant acquires right to effect
repairs. In that event he is entitled to recover costs thereof from the rent
H payable. Under s}08(t) of -the Transfer of Property Act, even in the
SHADI SINGH v. RAKHA [RAMASWAMY, J.] 733

..... ~', absence of a contract tenant has a unilateral right to effect repairs, when A
the landlord neglects to effect repairs within a resonable time after notice
the tenant has a right to effect the repairs and deduct the expenses with
interest from the rent or otherwise recover it from the landlord. Under the
Act this right is hedged with an obligation to get an order from the Rent
Controller.
B
·-(
There is a distinction between effecting repairs and in its guise to
make structural alteration or to restructure the building. The tenant cannot
effect structural alteration or reconstruct the building. It is the right of the
landlord alone to exclusively have it done, unless of course, the landlord
having had the tenant evicted from the building for that purpose and c
demolished the building and failed to reconstruct and redeliver possession
thereof to the tenant. In a given case if the tenant acts unilaterally and
x_ effects structual alterations or reconstruct the building, it itself may be a
ground for eviction under the appropriate provision of the statute. No such
allegation was made, nor an amendmen.t to the pleading sought by the
D
respondent in this behalf. A feeble attempt was mac!e by Shri Harbans Lal
to raise the contention. In the absence of the pleading and the contentions
raised in the courts below, we decline to permit the counsel to argue that
point, since t.here is no factual foundation in that behalf. The test in each
case is whether it is absolutely necessary to have the tenant evicted to carry
out repairs or structural alteration for making the demised building safe E
,--
(
and fit for human habitation. Further it is to be asked whether the repairs
are so fundamental in character and extensive which cannot be carried out
without evicting the tenant from the building or while the tenant remained

-- in occupation. If the repairs could be carried out without distrubing the
possession of the tenant, the need for eviction is mere a wish of the
landlord or a ruse to have the tenant evicted. Take for instance, a building,
in which commercial activity having established good will, was taken pos-
F

session of under s.13(3)(a)(iii) and.got no repairs effected but demolished
~ y and no reconstruction was made for a long time. Prolonged stoppage of
business will have a deleterious effect on the goodwill and cripple the
busines~ of the tenant. Each case on its own facts present its true colours. G
Its .effect is to be visualised and considered in its own perspective.

.. ~.
It is settled law that subsequent events can be taken note of and the
relief would be moulded suitably, vide Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. Raghunath
Prasad, [1981) 3 SCR 605 and Mis Variety Emporim v. V.R.M. Mohd. H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A Ibrahim Naina, (1985) 2 SCR 102 at 110. Therefore, the appellate authority
(District Court) is well justified in its conclusion that the cause of action
for eviction of the appellant no longer subsisted after the tenant effected
repairs and replaced that part of the fallen roof and the order of eviction,
thereafter became unnecessary and wrong.

B The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court
is set aside and that of the appellate authority is restored. Consequently
eViction Petition stands dismissed. But in the circumstances parties are
directed to bear their own costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.