MST. DEVKI DEVI Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petition filed by the landlady is against the judgment of variance by the Appellate Authority Barnala. The application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act was filed by Shrimati Devki Devi Landlady against Kartar Singh tenant-respondent for the ejectment of the latter from a shop situated at Bhadaur on three grounds, namely (1) default in the payment of arrears of rent; (2) impairment of the value and utility of the shop in dispute; and (3) the shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation being, thus, required for reconstruction. The ground of default was set at naught by the deposit of arrears of rent by the respondent on the first date of hearing before the Rent Controller. An issue regarding the validity of the tender was framed, but the same was also not pressed before that Authority as regards the ground of impairment of the value and utility of the shop, the Rent Controller after assessment of the evidence recorded a finding against the landlady. However, the third ground, namely, the shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was held in favour of the landlady and on this score the tenant was ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, though he was allowed one month's time to vacate the premises.

(2.) The tenant carried an appeal against the order the Rent Controller, which was heard by the Appellate Authority, Barnala. Obviously, the only ground which was mooted before that Authority was in regard to the premises being unfit and unsafe. The Appellate Authority also chose to inspect the spat and on the basis of the inspection made by it, it reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. The ejectment petition of the landlady was, therefore, dismissed. It is against this verdict of the Appellate Authority at the present Revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. H.L. Sarin,, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the relevant part of the evidence of the parties and more particularly the judgments of the two Authorities below, with a view to emphasise that the learned Appellate Authority has based its decision more on conjectures and on erroneous view of the whole matter. A perusal of the order of the Rent Controller would indicate that in the wake of contradictory evidence produced by both the parties, which consisted of the evidence of a building expert on each side and some other witnesses, who made oral assertion in support of their respective contentions. The learned Rent Controller, chose, and to my mind, rightly, to base his decision essentially on the assessment of the evidence of the two expert witnesses. The Rent Controller proceeded to examine the testimony of these experts in a comparative appraisal and came to the conclusion that the expert produced by the landlady who was a P. W. D. Overseer was more reliable than the one produced by the tenant. In coming to this conclusion the Rent Controller gave cogent reasons for the same. Kewal Krishan Overseer (AW2), the expert produced by the landlady gave clear picture of the condition of the building by deposing that the building was about 100 years old as the bricks used therein were of "Nanak-Shahi variety", that there were cracks in the walls of the shop and depression in the roof It was also stated that Karies (beams) of the roof bad been eaten by moths and some of the Karies had been replaced by bamboo sticks merely to gave a lease of life to the roof The expert further noticed that the plaster on the walls was missing and salt had been released by the walls. The mud plaster had left its cohesion from the side of the walls. It was rightly emphasised by the Rent Controller that this expert witness was not cross-examined on all points mentioned above on the basis of which he gave an opinion that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation As against the evidence of this expert, the Overseer produced by the tenant could not impress the Rent Controller with his expertise. On the other hand, the said expert admitted his ignorance as to whether the cohesion of the mud plaster had given way, though he admitted the plaster had been peeled off from the walls at some places. He contradicted himself by making a further statement that he did not notice the condition of the plaster, nor did he notice as to whether the Karies (beams) had been eaten away by moths. At the same time, he admitted that the Karies were old and, in fact, the whole roof was of old construction. He completed his testimony by frankly admitting that he could not say if the shop was likely to fall down at any time. In face of this type of evidence, the Rent Controller was quite justified in giving preference to the testimony of the expert produced by the landlady.