CHANDER PRABHA Vs. MADAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of the landlord who sought for eviction on several grounds that included his contention that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the building and that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The landlord's contention had been accepted by the Rent Controller, and ordered eviction, but the appellate authority on appeal by the tenant set aside the finding regarding the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation and allowed the appeal of the tenant. The landlord is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) It had been brought to the attention of the appellate authority that the building in the possession of the tenant was a shop and it was a part of a larger structure in the hands of the other tenants as well. During the pendency of the proceedings, it was brought on record that yet another tenant who was in occupation of the adjoining portion of the building had vacated and it was shown to have been admitted that the roof of the other portion had fallen down and that he was vacating the premises on account of precarious condition of the building. The court below had also referred to several photographs that sought to bring out evidence of the fact that the roof in the deodi had fallen down and in one portion of the building in which the tenant not in occupation was itself shown to have been badly damaged. The Court reasoned by a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court that the character of property of one portion as being in dilapidated condition could not make possible a definite inference that other portion in the hands that the tenant must also be taken as in a dilapidated condition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord contends that the building was more than 100 years old and the Court ought not to be looking for the building to be totally in ruins before he approached the Court for eviction. The counsel also relies on several decisions of this Court which have held that when a demised premise is a portion of a larger structure and if it is seen that other portions of the building have crumbled and fallen, the said instance would lend definite proof for the fact that the demised premise which is a part of the larger whole must also be assessed in the same fashion as unfit and unsafe for human habitation. There had been two reports brought through Engineers, one, on the side of the landlord and another, on the side of the tenant and predictably the landlord's witness was saying that the building was precarious and was unsafe while the tenant's witness stated that the building was not in an unfit condition for human habitation. In cases where divergent views are brought through witnesses claiming to be experts, the Court would not be without power to appoint an expert Commissioner suo motu and secure the proper testimony as regards the condition of the building. However, in this case, I would rest the whole reasoning on the fact that the building was admittedly old and the roof and the deodi surrounding the property had literally fallen down. The appellate Court was actually considering whether the property in the possession of the tenant was going to fall down the next day and if there was no such danger, the landlord could not have the benefit of eviction.