GOBIND RAM Vs. BAL KISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated February 3, 1981 whereby the order of the Rent Controller was reversed and the petition of the landlord for ejectment of the tenant accepted on the ground that the shop in dispute was unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) Before the Rent Controller, the landlord had got appointed a Local Commissioner who duly submitted his report. As the chance would have it, the report was misplaced by the Ahlmad and in lieu thereof a photostat copy supplied by the Local Commissioner was made part of the record. The Rent Controller, however, ruled it out and there being no other evidence rejected the plea of the landlord. On appeal, the learned District Judge (Appellate Authority) himself inspected the spot and found that there were cracks in the walls and the roof of the building was supported by iron sheets and a wooden SHATEER. It was further observed that the shop was in a highly dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation. It was also stated that even the northern wall has already fallen down. Exception was taken to this observation of the learned District Judge by the learned counsel for the petitioner who stated that the northern wall had been rebuilt. It was primarily because of this reason that I issued notice to the respondent. But after going through the record, I find that this was only a wrong expression and, in fact, what the Appellate Authority meant to say was that the northern wall had fallen down. The intent was to show the condition of the walls which were still standing and in that context it was observed that the northern wall has already fallen down.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that there is no material on the record to show that the learned Appellate Authority visited the spot in the presence of the petitioner and, therefore, requested that now a Local Commissioner may be appointed by the Court. I am, however, unable to accede to the request of the learned counsel. The premises in dispute is a shop and the petitioner, in all probability, was present when the inspection was made. He has nowhere averred even in the grounds of revision that he was not present when the learned District Judge inspected the spot. The grievance made is, therefore, without any substance.