CR No.3945 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3945 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 8.7.2011 Bhim Sain ......Petitioner(s) Versus Madan Gopal ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jind whereby the petitioner-tenant was granted a conditional stay order against his ejectment. As per the facts on record, eviction of the petitioner was ordered by the Rent Controller, Narwana vide order dated 26.5.2011 on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The relevant part of the aforesaid order reads as follows:- “In the present case, it has been admitted by the respondent that a portion of lanter has fallen down and even the rain water comes in the building and the building is in a dilapidated condition. Further, as per the Local Commissioner report also, the front portion has been completely damaged and walls are cracked and is unfit and unsafe. The judgment of petitioner under Section 12 is on the file which clearly shows that the said shop is beyond repair and hence same is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Thus, from the entire CR No.3945 of 2011(O&M) 2 evidence on record, it is clear that the said shop is unfit and unsafe. In Sardarni Sampuran Kaur and another” case (supra), it has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court that “Ground of ejectment-building unsafe and unfit for human habitation-The provision in the Rent Restriction Act does not provide that when the building completely falls only then the ground of ejectment becomes available to the landlord once the building became unsafe and unfit for human habitation, ground of ejectment becomes available. Reference in this regard may also be made to the ruling Tripta Devi and another versus Jagdish Kumar, 2007(2) LAR 451 wherein it has been held that “some portion of the first floor of the disputed shop had fallen down and malba of that portion was laying on the roof of the disputed shop. Other rooms on the back portion of the shop had fallen down and deep cracks have been appearing in the walls of the shop. In such situation, the demised shop being part of the larger building, substantial portion of which has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, is also liable to be vacated by the tenant on the ground that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.” Therefore, findings on this issue are recorded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.” The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the aforesaid order. On 15.6.2011, the following order was passed: “Heard on the stay application. In view of the CR No.3945 of 2011(O&M) 3 submissions so made by learned counsel for the appellant, operation of impugned judgment is hereby stayed till next date subject to deposit of Rs.20,000/- in the lower court within two weeks which would be adjustable towards the mesne profit so to be calculated and arrived at by the learned trial Court for the period w.e.f. 26.5.2011 i.e the date of the impugned judgment and decree till the appellant-tenant remains in possession subject to decision of this appeal. If the trial Court is on summer vacations the appellant would deposit the aforesaid amount with duty Magistrate.” A perusal of the order shows that discretionary relief of interim injunction was granted to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority on a condition of depositing of Rs.20,000/- within two weeks from the date of stay order, to be adjusted towards the mesne profits to be calculated and arrived at by the trial Court for the period after passing of the order of the Rent Controller i.e. 26.5.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid order till date. In view of the said non-compliance, order dated 15.6.2011 itself has become operational and the interim stay granted to the him stands vacated automatically. This Court restrains itself from invoking its revisional jurisdiction in the present case as discretionary relief was granted on certain conditions which have not been complied with. Dismissed. July 8, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.3945 of 2011(O&M) 4