Ram Gopal and Another vs Jiwan Parkash Passey

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This civil revision has been directed against the orders of the authorities below whereby ejectment of the petitioners has been ordered on the ground that the shop in their possession has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

Landlord (respondent herein) filed a petition u/s 13(2)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (for short the Act) for ejectment of their tenants (petitioners herein) from the shop in dispute. The landlord alleged in his petition that the shop has three spans (Khans) and the rear span has fallen down. There are cracks and the iron girders which supported the roof of this span, have bent down and other spans have also gone weak. In the corresponding para of the written statement, tenants simply stated that the averments made in the petition are wrong and hence denied. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence brought on record and the pleadings of the parties, found that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and resultantly ordered ejectment of the petitioners from the shop. In appeal, the judgment of the Rent Controller has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

In the present civil revision, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the authorities below have not taken into consideration the evidence and pleadings in proper perspective. He contended that the statement of witness examined by the petitioners are not worthy of any credence.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on going through the record, I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition. Landlord in his petition described the condition of the shop in detail whereas in the written statement, tenant did not specifically deny the averments made on the ejectment petition. It has been noticed by the Appellate Authority that in para 3 and 4 of the ejectment petition the landlord had pleaded that 2 spans (Khans) mark B and C are unfit and unsafe and are likely to fall at any time and the whole shop is in danger of breaking upon at any time as it is beyond repairs. In the corresponding paragraphs, the tenant simply pleaded "wrong and denied." The authorities, in order to find out that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, has taken into consideration the report of the building expert, Parshotam Singh retired S.D.O. (B&R). In this report, Ex.A.2 on inspection of the shop, he opined that the shop is unfit and unsafe for human habitation; that it is not only a danger to the tenant but also to the neighbours and persons sitting in the shop and the general public; it can fall at any time; the same cannot be repaired as the foundation of the shop has sunk; the building is beyond repair; the age of the shop is between 80-100 years; being a third class building, it has already outlived its life. The Appellate Authority, in para 10 of his judgment has also noticed specific defects which the expert had pointed out. Reliance is also being placed on the report of the Local Commissioner. Local Commissioner, Miss Mashomati Advocate was appointed in a suit between the parties to this litigation. In her report. Miss Yashomati found that -

(i) the roof of the room marked ''A'' in the plan has completely and totally collapsed; two iron girders have fallen down on the ground of room ''A'' which were rust eaten and hollow;

(ii) there are great cracks in between the roof of room ''B'' and ''C and holes in the roof of these two rooms;

(iii) the walls of room ''A'' are cracked;

(iv) the wall in between room ''A'' and ''B'' is also cracked;

(v) the ceiling of the stairs is also in dilapidated condition.

The statement of the expert examined by the petitioners, namely, Indresh Khanna, RW-5 was not found to be worthy of credence. He did not submit any report but only produced a plan containing some notes. In his statement, the expert could not tell the difference between bulging, sinking and out of plumb. He also failed to tell the meaning of the word, "grip of the girder." In my view, the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, have rightly come to the correct conclusion that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Since no infirmity has been pointed out in the findings of the Courts below, orders of the authorities below are not to be interfered with.

Consequently, this civil revision shall stand dismissed. However, petitioners are allowed three month''s time to vacate the premises provided they deposit/pay the entire arrears of rent including that of three months, with the Rent Controller, within a period of one month from today.