Raghunath (Died) through L.Rs. and Others vs Raghbir Dass

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Raghunath (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Amritsar dated September 22, 1981. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Instead, an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner granting him a month''s time to vacate the property.

The relevant facts are that respondent Raghbir Dass Bawa filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the demised premises. The sole surviving ground with which the present revision petition is concerned is that the demised property has become unfit arid unsafe for human habitation. The petition for eviction was contested. It was denied by the petitioner that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and qua the dispute, if the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the findings were adverse to the respondent-landlord. The respondent had preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority had set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller, and hence the present revision petition.

There is no controversy between the parties that the suit premises is an old structure. The case of the petitioner is that it is fit and safe for human habitation. He denied that it is in dilapidated condition. As pointed above, the Appellate Authority had returned the finding of fact that property in question is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. This Court while exercising its power under Sub Section (5) to Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ''the Act'') would only interfere if the findings are not based on evidence or contrary to law or are absurd.

With this backdrop, one can conveniently refer to the material on the record. The Civil Engineer Harbans Singh, however, had deposed categorically that some portion of the building has already collapsed and fallen. The walls are bulging out. There were cracks therein. So much so that there were holes at several places in the roof. It is not only the witness of the respondents who made such a statement, but the Civil Engineer Nand Singh produced by the petitioner (RW-4) even admitted that certain portion of the walls had fallen Admittedly, there was civil litigation between the parties. In that case, the court had appointed Shri T.S. Sandhu, advocate as the Local Commissioner. In his report, he has shown that walls have been damaged. The roof of the ''Kothari'' had fallen and left wall of the said ''Kothari'' had completely broken. Thus, the evidence on the record clearly establishes that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority were based on evidence and not conjunctures. It leaves no scope for interference.

For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is dismissed.

The petitioner is granted a month''s time to vacate the property.