AMARJIT KAUR Vs. TILAK RAJ AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is brought at the instance of the tenant-petitioner who resisted an action for eviction brought by a landlord on two grounds; one, the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation; and second, the tenant had by willful conduct brought material impairment to the building. The tenant was carrying on a small jewellery business at the shop and the petitioner's grievance was that he had, by use of hammer and other equipments connected with the business, caused damage to the building. The Rent Controller rejected these contentions and found that there was no act of the tenant to cause serious damage of material impairment and his own implements that he used for the avocation were such as not rendering possible a grave impairment. Dealing with the condition of the building, the Rent Controller again held that the evidence brought by the landlord was not sufficient to find that there had been any serious issue of safety to the building. The Appellate Court, however, reversed the findings and has held that the landlord was entitled to an eviction. Since the revision petitioner assails the orders of the Appellate Court, I urged the counsel to show as to how the judgment of the Appellate Court was any way vitiated to call for an interference in revision.

(2.) The Appellate Court had the benefit, as indeed the Rent Controller had, of the report of the building expert and certain photographs. It was brought out in evidence that the construction had been made by nanak shahi bricks, which itself was a proof that the construction have been made at least 100 years' earlier. The photographs mark as AW10/1 to AW10/6 revealed the old nature of building. AW6 Mr. S.C. Vermani had prepared a report on 18.11.1983 and along with the report he has submitted a plan as well. The report confirmed that the walls were built of nanak shahi bricks with patches in standard size pucca bricks at places laid in mud, mortar or lime stone. The expert had found that there were cracks at several places and the walls were not true to the plumb. The parapet on the front side was found missing entirely. There was also the evidence of the landlord to say that the level of the floor had sunk and the front portion of the first floor had fallen in the month of May during the time of the trial. It was evidenced that this fallen portion was reconstructed during the course of trial. The expert had also noted that the doors had been broken and it was not fit for human habitation. There was also evidence brought that the neighbourers had their own shops on separate foundation. The Appellate Court found that the report of the building expert was detailed and it was verily a clincher.

(3.) Unless a building is really of archaeological value, there is no reason why a landlord should allow the building to go into total ruins and allow it to be preserve in that state. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner passionately argues that after all the building has not completely collapsed, although, the case has been instituted in the year 1983 and the fact that the building has survived this litigation itself shows that the condition of the building as stated to be unfit and uninhabitable cannot be true. We must only see that if the building had not completely collapsed during this long litigation, the parties have been fortunate that extent. It can never be a wish of the Court and of the parties that the building that is said to be uninhabitable must be such as it would collapse and cause casualties to litigants during its long journey in Court. The order of eviction made is founded on appropriate inferences from the evidence which was led by the parties. I find the rendering of reasoning to be sufficient to sustain the order passed. I do not deem it necessary to enter into an issue of whether the tenant's act in the building had caused any material impairment. The order is confirmed. The revision is dismissed.