Madan Lal and Others vs Bharat Bhushan

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the order of the Authorities below ordering his ejectment.

The ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that he is in arrears of rent; that he has sub-let the premises to his brother, Prem Chand, without the written consent of the landlord; that the demised premises along with the ground floor are in a dilapidated condition and as such, have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

The ground of arrears of rent was given up as the same was tendered before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on two grounds, i.e. sub-letting of premises and the premises haying become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

On appeal by the tenant, the appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to sub-letting, however affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and therefore, the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed. This finding of the Courts below has been challenged in the present revision petition.

Counsel for the tenant contended that the authorities below fell in error in ordering the ejectment of the tenant and treating the demised premises as an integral part of the building. He further contended that the ejectment could not be ordered on the basis that the ground floor of the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Counsel also submitted that the Authorities below were not justified in accepting the report. Exhibit AW-2/B, of Kishan Singh. Building Expert, with regard to the condition of the building. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Harnek Singh of Patiala v. Bir Singh by LR''s (1989) 96 P. L. R. 191 , and a judgment of Supreme Court in Piara Lal Vs. Kewal Krishan Chopra, .

The Rent Controller after appraising the entire oral and documentary evidence produced on record, came to a firm conclusion that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. This is a pure finding of fact and calls for not interference. The contention of learned counsel for the tenant that the demised premises is not an integral part of the building, is also without any merit. It has come in the statement of Kishan Singh, Retired Architect (AW-2) as well as in the statement of Didar Singh Garg, Building Expert examined by the tenant that the entire building is one unit. The Authorities below rightly accepted the report Exhibit AW-2/B submitted by Kishan Singh, Retired Architect, who not only inspected the ground floor but also the first and second floor, and on inspection of the same, he found that the building is more than 60 years old. The wooden members of the roof, i. e. planks and battons have started crumbling down with decay. This has depressed the foundation and there are see-through holes on the roof of ground floor. One of the holes is about ''2 � 3'' and is covered from above with a loose iron sheet. He further found that the walls have developed cracks to their full height causing damage to the floor. The roof of the staircase for going to the first and second floor is also in a dilapidated condition. More so, during his inspection, a chunk of the cornice of the ceiling of a room fell down and the people taking tea in that room had a miraculous escape. Didar Singh Garg (RW-3) Building Expert, examined by the tenant also found in his report, the existence of a crack of 1/16" thick starting from first floor to the second floor. However he did not give any detailed report about the ground floor. He in his statement admitted that he did not prepare the site plan of the ground floor. The very fact that the Building Expert examined by the tenant though inspected the ground floor, yet did not care to produce the plan or details of the condition of the ground floor, raises a strong presumption in favour of the report submitted by Kishan Singh (AW-2) with regard to condition of the ground floor. The judgments relied upon in Harnek Singh''s case (supra) and Piara Lal''s case (supra) have no application to the facts of the present case because in Harnek Singh''s case (supra) the High Court relying upon Piara Lal''s case (supra) set aside the order of the appellate Court because the roof of one room which was in-dependent of other room was in a dilapidated condition. However, this is not the position in the instant case because in this case, the ground floor which is an integral part of the entire building is in a dilapidated condition, and the first floor as well as the second floor have also developed cracks, and therefore the Authorities below rightly found that the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is granted three month''s time to vacate the premises subject to his depositing the entire arrears of rent and the future rent with the Rent Controller within one month from today. The tenant shall also file an undertaking with the Rent Controller to the effect that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises on the expiry of aforesaid period.