SANT LAL Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below on the ground that the premises, in dispute, bed become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(2.) SHAM Lal, landlord, filed the ejectment application seeking ejectment of his tenant Sant Lal from the house in dispute. It was pleaded inter alia that the demised premises bed become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, the tenant was liable to ejectment, In the written statement, the tenant denied the said averments The learned Rent Controller earlier appointed a local commissioner who gave his report dated September 3, 1984, and later on himself mida spot inspaition on October 21,1987. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on the record aid site inspection, came to the conclusion that the landlord was entitled to eject his tenant on the ground that the portion under his tenancy was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Consequeatly, the ejetment order was passed on October 19, 1987. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order.

(3.) ACCORDING to the tenant petitioner after the spot inspection was made by the Rent Controller, he should not have decided the ejectmeat application. Moreover, the local commissioner inspected the site without any notice to the tenant and in his absence. The findings of the authorities below in this behalf that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation were wrong and illegal.