Jagdish Kumar and Others vs Raj Kumar and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—The judgment will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 946 and 947 of 1986 as one of the points involved is common in both the cases.

Landlord Raj Kumar sought ejectment of his two tenants, namely, Jagdish Kumar and Ved Parkash from the premises, in dispute, inter alia on the grounds that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenants have sublet the premises. According to the landlord, the first floor of the building on the shop, in dispute, has become unsound and dangerous and it is not fit for human habitation and both the shops, in dispute, are a part of the whole building. In the written statement, the tenants pleaded that the shops'' premises are in good condition and the same were let out to them by making the same as a new construction. The entire portion was renovated and was still in good condition and not unsafe and unfit for human habitation, as alleged. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the shops, in dispute, have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to the Rent Controller, it is the admitted case of the tenants that prior to the leasing of the premises, some beams had been erected under neath the roof of the shop. Thus, the natural inference is that it might have been necessitated due to the weak condition of the roof. That by itself shows that the structure of the shop portion is not quite fit. This portion is very old one and the walls have only been built with mud mortar. The left side wall has many vertical cracks and the parapet has also been damaged. According to the expert witnesses, even the foundations of the walls have sunk and the earth was found falling on the false ceiling put in the shop. Even the partition wall, which was constructed some time prior to the year 1970, has a vertical crack. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal eviction orders passed in both the applications were maintained.

In the ejectment application against Ved Parkash tenant, giving rise to Civil Revision No. 947 of 1966, it was further found that the tenant has also sublet the premises to Respondent No 2. This finding was also maintained by the Appellate Authority.

The main controversy between the parties in both the petitions is as to whether the premises, in dispute, had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioners contended that when the shops were let out in the year 1970, they were newly constructed and renovated and the Chaubara thereon had already fallen, and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be held that the premises, in dispute, have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in these petitions. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found that: -

So it is proved that the first floor is substantial portion of the whole of the building, because upper portion was 18'' � 27'' and the shop in dispute is 9'' � 271/2''. The photographs Exhibits A5 to A3 also show that upper portion of the premises in dispute was in dilapidated condition as proved from the statement of Chuni Lal AW1.

It is further in the evidence that this Chaubara had fallen after the premises were let out. As a matter of fact, the shops, in dispute, were never reconstructed. Only certain repairs were made. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Authorities below. The building is an old one. The Chaubara thereon had already fallen and the premises, in dispute, are in a very dilapidated condition and, therefore, the tenants were liable to ejectment on this ground.

Consequently, both the petitions fail and are dismissed with costs. However, the tenants are allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises, in dispute, provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that, after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and the rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.