SOHAN LAL Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter here concerns the ejectment of the tenant, now represented by his legal representatives, inducted as such on September 9, 1958 on the premises consisting of two shops and three Chobaras constructed thereon at the instance of landlords on the grounds, amongst other, that the tenanted premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation in terms of provisions of Section 13 (3) (a) (iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Other grounds of ejectment taken by the landlords are no longer relevant for this revision petition, having been either not pressed at the time of arguments or found against them. The only question raised and required to be decided is, thus whether the tenanted premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(2.) THE Rent Controller by order dated May 21, 1984 allowed the application for ejectment and ordered ejectment of the tenant by holding that the building was old and in a dilapidated condition and could fall at any time and thus, was unfit for hum in habitation. On appeal by Sohan Lal tenant, order of ejectment was upheld and the appeal was dismissed by order dated April 15, 1987. Hence, this revision petition at the instance of the tenant,

(3.) THE matter was argued at some length on an earlier occasion. During the courage of arguments, learned counsel for the tenant as also of the landlords agreed that it was a fit case where a local commissioner be appointed by this Court and a report sought about the condition of the building in question. Accordingly, Shri Baljinder Singh, Advocate was appointed as local Commissioner with a direction to visit the premises in dispute and submit his report. The report submitted by him is Mark C. 1 on the record. He made a detailed report about each and every portion of the shops as also of the Chobaras A reading of his report clearly shows that the premises in question cannot be said to be unsafe or unfit for human habitation.