PRITAM KAUR Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners-landlords filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) seeking the eviction of the respondent-tenant, Om Parkash on two grounds, namely, on account of non- payment of rent from 1.7.1980 to 31.7.1981, and on the ground that the premises in question has been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller by an order dated 9.9.1983 rejected the claim of the petitioners-landlords on account of non-payment of rent in view of the fact that Om Parkash, tenant had tendered arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. On the issue that the premises was unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the Rent Controller accepted the plea raised by the petitioners- landlords and thereby required the respondent-tenant to vacate premises within two months.

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the order passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent- tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 19.3.1984 confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the issue of non-payment of rent. It, however, upset the finding of the Rent Controller wherein the Rent Controller had concluded that the premises in question was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is, therefore, apparent that on both the grounds, the Appellate Authority returned a finding against the petitioners-landlords. The petitioners-landlords have assailed the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority on the both the issues.

(3.) IN so far as the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-landlords is concerned, the report of the expert has been repeatedly read out. The aforesaid report is available on the record of this case as Ex.A-1. The report dated 15.11.1982 is indeed damaging if accepted as correct. It is, however, not possible for me to accept the aforesaid report as correct on account of the fact that the petitioner-landlord while appearing as AW1 before the Rent Controller made categoric statement that he had constructed a Chobara on the shop in question and is residing therein. If the shop in occupation of the tenant was unsafe and unfit for human habitation, it cannot be accepted that the landlord would be residing in a Chobara constructed on that very shop. In fact, the aforesaid factual position was noticed by the Appellate Authority as well while rejecting the report of the expert. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Appellate Authority on the second ground raised by the petitioners- landlords. For the reasons recorded above, the instant petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.