AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
The ejectment application was filed on October 11, 1983, by landlord, the Khadi Ashram, against the tenant Parshotam Lal claiming his ejectment from the shop, in dispute, which was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-(sic). It was let out on June 1, 1980 whereas the landlord had purchased it on May 21, 1980 The ejectment was sought on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition and deserved to be demolished and re-constructed. The construction was about 70/80 years and was in a bad shape. The entire building had been re-constructed in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur with the exception of the portion which is in dispute in this case. The shop being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the tenant was liable to be ejected therefrom. The stand taken by the tenant was that the condition of the shop was quite good. The application for ejectment was mala fide as the landlord wanted to earn pugree after getting it vacated from the tenant. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the entire evidence including the expert evidence of A W. 3 Parmodh Chander Bhardwaj, came to the conclusion that the building in question, had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the learned Rent Controller, it was proved on the record that landlord had already got approved the building plan from the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur for re-construction of the building, in dispute. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed on January 18, 1985. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order According to the Appellate Authority, it was proved beyond doubt that the condition of the building was such that it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it has been wrongly held by the authorities below that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the learned Counsel, an application for the appointment of a local commissioner was made before the Rent Controller, but the same was declined arbitrarily. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, the shop in dispute, was purchased on May 21, 1980 and was let out, on June 1, 1980. That being so the shop was let out, according to the learned Counsel, in a good condition and it could not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation when the ejectment application was filed on October, 11, 1983. According to the learned Counsel, the requirement of the law is that the building has become "unsafe and unfit for human habitation", which according to the learned Counsel, means that it must become unfit after the same was let out.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the landlord-Respondent submitted that on the appreciation of the entire evidence it has been concurrently found that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that being a finding of fact could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Rajbir Kaur and Another Vs. S. Chokesiri and Co., .
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.
There is a writing, Exhibit, A. 2, dated November 18, 1983, written by the tenant addressed to the Manager, Khadi Ashram. It has been stated therein that if he pays a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to him and leaves the rent due up to date, he will vacate the premises as it is an old one. This clinches the matter. As a matter of fact, the tenant wanted money to vacate the premises as he knew that it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
Apart from that, the learned Appellate Authority after discussing the entire evidence has given a firm finding that the evidence of Shri Bhardwaj is simply acceptable. The tenant did not examine any expert to rebut what the former had stated. It may be stated that according to his report, due to the loss of adhesive power or mortar, joints had separated at least in the measure 1/4" from the adjoining wall. Rain water entered the cracks resulting in damage to the walls and other parts of the building including the flooring. The walls are in tilting position. All these factors considered collectively show beyond doubt as also opined by Shri Bhardwaj that the building can fall down at any time and thus was unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
As a result of the above discussion, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with Rent Controller within a month along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of three months, vacant possession of the premises would be handed over to the landlord and the rent for the said period will be paid every month regularly.