CHUHAR SINGH Vs. MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the verdict of two Authorities below, namely, Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the tenant Chuhar Singh has filed the present revision petition resisting eviction. It is not disputed that the main ground on which the petitioner was ordered to be evicted, is that the demised premises which is a shop had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In recording a finding to this effect, the Authorities below have assessed the oral evidence produced by the parties. In addition, the respondent-landlord had also produced Harbans Singh (A.W. 1) a Civil Engineer who after inspection of the demised premises, gave a clear report that the shop in question was in bad shape and was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. he also reported that the roof is standing with the support of two wooden beams and wooden joints only. To add to this material, the petitioner himself admitted in his cross-examination that the wooden beam which was providing support to the roof had also eracked, though he gave a reason that it was due to the presence of a chobara above the roof which had been erected by the respondent. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the Authorities are at one in holding that the shop is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In consequence of this finding, the ejectment of the petitioner is inevitable.

(2.) Mr. H. L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, cited a couple of authorities in which it is interpreted that even a reconstruction of a roof can be deemed to be a repair, but these authorities are dealing with cases under section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, for which the consideration is quite different. These cases have no reference to the point as to whether the property in dispute is fit or unfit for human habitation. No support from these authorities can, therefore, be derived by the learned counsel.

(3.) In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. The demised premises is a shop and although the tenant has availed of sufficient opportunity earlier, till I am inclined to grant him some more time to vacate the same. The petitioner is allowed two months time from today to put the landlord in possession provided he pays the arrears of rent up-to-date within three weeks from today. In case the arrears are not paid, the concession of time to vacate the premises shall he deemed to have been withdrawn and the petitioner shall be liable to be evicted forthwith.