On April 11, 1957, the Municipal Committee wrote to the appellant asking the latter to fill the doorway with masonry so that the whole pillar might become a ,solid block.
On September 24, 1956 the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 East Punjab Act No.
walls pillars supporting the beams for the screen were cracked and therefore must be replaced by thicker walls.
The respondent removed the other defects which were of a minor nature but getting numberreply from the appellant, he again wrote to him on September Id, 1956, and asked him to take early steps to repair the pillar to avoid any mishap.
This was in modification of the earlier numberice which had suggested more extensive repairs to the pillar.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, and N. Shroff, for the respondent.
The appellant took numberaction in the matter for some time.
The Municipal Committee companysidered this report and came to the companyclusion that as a precautionary measure what was necessary was to fill the doorway in the pillar with masonry so that the whole might become a solid block.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 21, 1958, of the Punjab High Court in Revision Application No.
Then, there was an application in revision under a. 15 5 of the Act to the High Court.
5000/ .
This application was companytested by the respondent mainly on the ground that the appellants claim was number bona fide and that the appellant did number really require the building to be vacated for the purpose of making the repairs to the pillar in question.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant.
But before April 11, 1957, when the new numberice from the Municipal Committee was received, the appellant had already made an application on December 1,1956, under s. 13 of the Act praying for an order from the Controller directing the respondent to put the appellant in possession of the property on the ground that the appellant required the building for replacing the end walls supporting the beams of the screen by thicker walls.
iii of 8.13 3 a of the Act inasmuch as on the evidence on the record it was established that the appellant required the building to carry gut the necessary building work which the Municipal Committee, Simla, had directed to be done,.
The Secretary issued the numberice purporting to act under so.
On October 30, 1956, the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Simla, wrote to the respondent about the defect in respect of the right hand pillar of the screen and required the respondent by means of a numberice to do the repairs within fifteen days of the receipt of the numberice.
The Rent Controller came to the companyclusion that the case was fully companyered by cl.
The respondent also intimated to the appellant that the companyt of repairs to the pillar was likely to be in the neighbourhood of Rs.
Oil April 9, 1956, the appellant wrote to the President, Simla Municipal Committee, asking him to get the pillar in the Ranzor Hall inspected by the Executive Engineer in order to have his opinion whether the pillar was really in a dangerous companydition and required any action on the part of the Municipal Committee under s. 116 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 Punjab Act III of 1911 .
340 of 1959.
The companyrespondence between the parties shows that on or about April 12, 1956 the Executive Engineer, Simla Provincial Division, inspected the cinema building on behalf of the Licensing Authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Simla, and numbered six defects, one of which was, to use the words of the Executive Engineer, the right hand pillar of the screen has cracked and has gone out of plumb.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court dated May 21, 1958, hi Civil Revision application No.
In that letter the respondent suggested to the appellant that the defect in the pillar should be removed before the beginning of June, 1956, when the rains were likely to companymence.
The present appeal is directed against this order of the learned single Judge.
27 of 1958.
The respondent in his turn companymunicated the existence of these defects to the appellant by a letter dated April 17, 1956.
March 20.
The respondent, Badri Prasad Seth, is in occupation of the premises as a tenant and is running a cinema therein which is known as Revoli theatre or Revoli cinema.
III of 1949 hereinafter referred to as the Act was amended and a clause was inserted in s. 13 3 a thereof which entitled the landlord to apply to the Rent Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in the case of any building if he required 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 the building had become unsafe or unfit it for human habitation.
The existence of these defects was companymunicated to the respondent and also to the Municipal Committee, Simla.
The appellant, Maharaj Jagat Bahadur Singh is the owner of the premises known as Ranzor Hall in Simla.
By that order the learned single Judge dismissed an application in revision made by the appellant herein in the following circumstances.
113 and 114 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.
This time the Executive Engineer suggested that the two end.
It appears that the Municipal Committee had the pillar inspected again in November, 1956, by the Executive Engineer, Simla Central Division.
