Mst. Ishri and others vs Hari Ram and others

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.—This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Ishri, etc. tenants against the order of the Appellate Authority, Patiala, dated May 30, 1977, by which an order of ejectment had been passed against them.

Briefly the facts are that Smt. Ishri, etc., were the tenants of the shop in dispute on a yearly rent of Rs. 430/-. The landlord filed an application for ejectment inter alia on the ground that the shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The application was contested by the tenants who denied the aforesaid allegation and took some other pleas. It is not necessary to mention the other pleas for decision of this revision petition. The Rent Controller held that the shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and consequently he ordered the ejectment of the tenants. They went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority which affirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller and dismissed the same. The tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the findings of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority are erroneous and in fact the shop in dispute is fit for human habitation. I have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length but regret my inability to accept the contention.

The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority after taking into consideration the evidence of all the witnesses have concurrently held that the shop has become unsafe and is not fit for human habitation. Petitioners in support of their case had produced Jugal Kishore, Overseer, AW. 3, Shamsher Singh, Engineer, AW 9 and Amar Nath, Municipal Engineer, AW. 6. The respondents produced Bakhtawar Singh RW. 2. The learned Appellate Authority has in detail reproduced the statements of the aforesaid witnesses. Normally this Court does not interfere with the conclusions of fact arrived at by the appellate authority. I have gone through the judgment and have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and find that the conclusions arrived at by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are correct and there is no scope for interference with the same. Consequently, I reject the contention of the learned counsel and affirm the judgment of the appellate authority.

For the reasons recorded above, I dismiss the revision, I however, grant three months time, to the petitioners, to vacate the shop. This will be subject to the petitioners depositing the arrears of rent by January 31, 1978, alongwith the rent of January. For February and March, 1978, they would pay the rent by 15th of each month in advance.