LEKH RAJ Vs. MUNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The present appeals are by the defendant-tenant as against the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction by which it reversed the finding of the appellate Court that the disputed shop in question is not unsafe for human habitation. The questions raised in these appeals are :

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversies we are herewith giving some of the essential facts. The appellant took the disputed shop on rent from one Aya Ram who sold the said shop to one Prakash Rani. The respondents Nos. 1 to 8 are Lrs. of this Prakash Rani, who filed petition for eviction against the appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') from the disputed shop. The eviction petition was based on three grounds : (a) The appellant has not paid the rent from 2nd July, 1968, (b) He has sub-let the shop without taking the permission of the landlord and (c) the building is in dilapidated condition with cracks hence not fit for human habitation requiring demolition and reconstruction. The appellant denied all these and other allegations made in the petition. The trial Court decreed the eviction petition. It held that the appellant tendered the rent on 24-10-1975 about which no grievance was made by the respondent-landlord at the time of arguments, the shop was sub-let by the appellant, and the disputed shop is unfit for human habitation. The appellant filed appeal and the appellate Court set aside the trial Court findings. It held that sub-letting has not been proved. It further, on the basis of evidence on record, held that it cannot be said that the cracks in the building have made it unfit or unsafe for human habitation. Aggrieved by this the respondent filed revision in the High Court. During the pendency of the said revision an application was moved by respondents for appointment of a local Commissioner which was objected through written objection by the appellant. The said local Commissioner submitted his report to the Court, the relevant portion of his report is quoted hereunder :