PREM CHAND MITTAL Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant has applied for the invalidation of the finding dated 13.3.32009. The learned Appellate Authority affirmed the view obtained by the learned Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on a finding that the premises aforementioned had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Appellate Authority did not go into the controversy about the validity or otherwise of the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller that the respondent-landlord has not been able to prove that the petitioner-tenant had changed the user of the tenanted premises. It would follow therefrom that parties restricted their controversy to the validity or otherwise of the finding that premises had become unfit or unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tenant canvassed that impugned finding is not correctly appreciative of the fact that the building expert examined by the respondent landlord was not a qualified person.

(3.) The plea raised is oblivious of the fact that the petitioner did not examine the building expert as his own witness to rebut the deposition on oath of PW-2-Kulwant Singh who had inspected the tenanted premises and had given a precise finding about the tenanted premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that the statement made by the expert is in accord with the pleadings and deposition on oath of the respondent-landlord. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that the expert had been allowed to inspect the premises by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22.2.2001. Further, the photographer had taken photographs Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/15 (of the tenanted premises) with the leave of the Court which came to be granted vide order dated 22.2.2001 itself by the learned Rent Controller. Though the expert did concede that no test had been conducted to check the adhesive strength of the cement, he was equally categorical in asserting that "100% of the batons used in the roof in the property in dispute were moth eaten and termite effected." The deposition on oath of the expert is cemented by the testimony of PW-3-Surinder Sharma, a professional photographer, who had taken photographs Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/15 (Ex. PW3/16 to Ex. PW3/30 being their negatives), under the instructions of the building expert Kulwant Singh, on 24.3.2001. A perusal of the photographs will also support the presentation that a hole had been found in the roof. The fact that 100% of the batons used in the roof were found to be moth eaten and termite effected and also the fact that a hole had been found in the roof would go a long way to support the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority that the respondent-landlord had been able to prove that the tenanted premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Insofar as the controversy about the change of user is concerned, finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller would, even otherwise, deserve to be affirmed, though for reasons slightly a different from those recorded by the learned Rent Controller. In this case, the respondent-landlord averred that the premises had rented out "for the sale and purchase of packing material business" but that the petitioner-tenant has changed it to an industry wherein he is running a saw mill. The petitioner-tenant denied that averment in the pleadings and asserted that the premises had been taken on rent "for running a wood cutter for the manufacturing of wooden blocks."