ASHOK KUMAR Vs. JAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) ASHOK Kumar, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant from the house, in dispute, on the ground of bonafide requirement for his own occupation and that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The same were to be demolished for the purpose of raising a new construction for his own living. According to the landlord he was living in the house of his father where other members of the family were also living. It was alleged that he was a married person having two children and his brothers and sisters were also living in the house of his father and the accommodation there was not sufficient for their living. According to him, the disputed house was very old and the same was to be demolished and reconstructed. In the written statement, the tenant denied the factum of tenancy. The other allegations were also denied. He maintained that the house in which the landlord was living was sufficient for his living. It was also alleged that the application was bad for non-joinder of parties. According to the tenant, earlier an ejectment application had been brought by the father of the landlord and the said application was dismissed on September 13, 1978. The appeal was also dismissed on April 28, 1979. It was further alleged that he was certainly a tenant in the premises but Banwari Lal and Sardari Lal were the landlords. The learned Rent Controller found that the property, in dispute, had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was also found that there existed the relationship of landlord and the premises for his own use and occupation as the accommodation with him was insufficient to meet his requirements. Consequently, the eviction order was passed on November 6, 1985. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller primarily on the ground that there was another building owned by the landlord which was not disclosed by him and, therefore, on this short ground alone, the application was liable to be dismissed. According to the Appellate Authority in the said building godown portion is also in possession of the landlord and as such the whole house will be deemed to be in his possession. According to it, even the Patwari was admittedly living at some stage in the chaubara which existed in that house. As regards the premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the Appellate Authority found that :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record. I find that the approach of the Appellate Authority was wrong whereas the learned Rent Controller rightly found that the landlord bonafide required the premises for his own use and occupation and the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The other building was a godown and could not be said to be a residential one. The mere fact that some time the Patwari was living in the chaubara therein was of no consequence and will not covert the non-residential building into a residential one. The whole approach of the Appellate Authority in this behalf was misconceived. Similarly, the approach of the Appellate Authority that the building had not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was also wrong and improper. The building is an old one and is built of Nanakshahi bricks. It has been found as a fact by the Appellate Authority that certain cracks are certainly shown in the residential portion which is the subject-matter of this case. Thus, it could not be held that the building has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.