Case: Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh Vs. Badri Prasad Seth

interfere and dismissed the application in revision. The present appeal is directed against this order of the learned single Judge.The learned Attorney General who appeared on behalf of the appellant has rightly pointed out that the, learned Judge of the High Court was in error in disposing of the case as though the application in revision made to the High Court was an application under a. 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The application was really an application under a. 15(5) of the Act which is in these terms "15. (5) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party or on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit."4. It is manifest that the scope of sub-a. (5) of a. 15 of the Act is not the same as the scope of a. 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Attorney General has submitted, rightly in our opinion, that the scope of sub-a. (5) of a. 15 of the Act is wider and is not confined to questions of jurisdiction only.5. But even if the learned Judge of the High Court was in error in treating the application as one under a. 115, Code of Civil Procedure, the fact -still remains that he affirmed the findings of the learned District Judge and one of these findings was that the landlord did not require the building to carry out the repair work which was suggested by the Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee had suggested a very simple work of repair, namely, filling up of the doorway in the pillar so that the pillar might be one solid wall to support the screen. It has not been seriously disputed before us that such repairs could be easily carried out with. out the necessity of asking the respondent to vacate the building. As a matter of fact the learned Dis- trict Judge has pointed out that the Executive Engineer, Central P.W.D. had, subsequent to the application, examined the pillar and found that the repair work had already been done by the respondent.The learned Attorney General has contended that the learned District judge was in error in holding that the appellant had manipulated the notices under s. 113 and 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act. We think it unnecessary to go into that question because the relevant provision in s. 13(3)(a) of the Act makes it quite clear that the landlord is entit- led to an order from the Controller directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building only when the landlord requires it to carry out any building work etc. The relevant provision reads as follows .lm15 "13. (1) A tenant in possession of a building or rented land shall not be evicted therefrom x. x x except in accordance with the provisions of this section, x x x. (2) x x x. (3) (a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession- (1) x x x (ii) x x x (iii)in the case of any building or rented land if he requires it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. x x X.6. We emphasise the word "requires" in the provision. Having regard to the scheme and purpose of the legislation it is abundantly clear that cl. (iii) of a.13(3)(a) of the Act is 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 that they cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in possession. Then only it can be said that the landlord requires the building to carry out the building work. We think that it is absurd to suggest that any such small work as whitewashing, or filling up the gap in the doorway as in the present cage, comes within el. (iii) of s. 13(3)(a) of the Act.The learned Attorney General has argued that the learned District Judge wrongly took into consideration facts which had come into existence after the filing of the application under s. 13 of the Act. Here again we think that having regard to the scheme and purpose of the.. legislation it was open to the learned District Judge to take into considera- tion such facts as existed at the time when the order for vacation was to come into effect. Section (13) says that the Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller. In the present case the Controller made the order in July, 1957, and directed the building to be vacated by September 25, 1957. But long before that date, namely, on June 8, 1957, the Executive Engineer, Central P.W.D., had inspected the building and found that the pillar had been repaired satisfactorily. The , Controller did not accept the testimony of the Executive Engineer and the learned District Judge pointed out that the testimony of the Executive Engineer had been rejected by the Controller on very insufficient grounds. It was, open to the learned District Judge to take into consideration the testimony of the Executive Engineer and having regard to that testimony, the learned District Judge rightly came to the conclusion that cl. (iii) of a. 13(3) (a) of the Act was not attracted to the case.7.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]But even if the learned Judge of the High Court was in error in treating the application as one under a. 115, Code of Civil Procedure, the fact -still remains that he affirmed the findings of the learned District Judge and one of these findings was that the landlord did not require the building to carry out the repair work which was suggested by the Municipal Committee. The Municipal Committee had suggested a very simple work of repair, namely, filling up of the doorway in the pillar so that the pillar might be one solid wall to support the screen. It has not been seriously disputed before us that such repairs could be easily carried out with. out the necessity of asking the respondent to vacate the building. As a matter of fact the learned Dis- trict Judge has pointed out that the Executive Engineer, Central P.W.D. had, subsequent to the application, examined the pillar and found that the repair work had already been done by the respondent.The learned Attorney General has contended that the learned District judge was in error in holding that the appellant had manipulated the notices under s. 113 and 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act. We think it unnecessary to go into that question because the relevant provision in s. 13(3)(a) of the Act makes it quite clear that the landlord is entit- led to an order from the Controller directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building only when the landlord requires it to carry out any building workemphasise the word "requires" in the provision. Having regard to the scheme and purpose of the legislation it is abundantly clear that cl. (iii) of a.13(3)(a) of the Act is 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 that they cannot be carried out if the tenant remains in possession. Then only it can be said that the landlord requires the building to carry out the building work. We think that it is absurd to suggest that any such small work as whitewashing, or filling up the gap in the doorway as in the present cage, comes within el. (iii) of s. 13(3)(a) of the Act.The learned Attorney General has argued that the learned District Judge wrongly took into consideration facts which had come into existence after the filing of the application under s. 13 of the Act. Here again we think that having regard to the scheme and purpose of the.. legislation it was open to the learned District Judge to take into considera- tion such facts as existed at the time when the order for vacation was to come into effect. Section (13) says that the Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller. In the present case the Controller made the order in July, 1957, and directed the building to be vacated by September 25, 1957. But long before that date, namely, on June 8, 1957, the Executive Engineer, Central P.W.D., had inspected the building and found that the pillar had been repaired satisfactorily. The , Controller did not accept the testimony of the Executive Engineer and the learned District Judge pointed out that the testimony of the Executive Engineer had been rejected by the Controller on very insufficient grounds. It was, open to the learned District Judge to take into consideration the testimony of the Executive Engineer and having regard to that testimony, the learned District Judge rightly came to the conclusion that cl. (iii) of a. 13(3) (a) of the Act was not attracted to the case.