SHAMBU NATH Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana dated 3.10.1986 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-tenant against the order of his eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 13.3.1985.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant in property No. B-II/412, Bazar Bazazan, Ludhiana owned by the respondent-landlord at an annual rent of Rs. 500/- since 4.2.1947. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In support of his claim, the landlord examined an expert Mr. Satya Dev Gupta, a retired Executive Engineer, who gave his detailed report, Exh. A-1 and also filed site plan, Exh. A-2. The tenant also furnished reports of experts; namely, Mr. B.C. Katyal and Mr. Bodh Raj Dhall, both retired S.D.Os. Statements of Mr. Satya Dev Gupta and Mr. B.C. Katyal were also recorded and they were also made available for cross-examination. However, Mr. Bodh Raj Dhall was not produced by the tenant for cross-examination. On a consideration of the evidence led by both the parties, the Rent Controller accepted the report of the expert of the landlord Mr. Satya Dev Gupta and upheld the claim that the premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, he allowed the application and directed the petitioner-tenant to put the landlord into possession within two months from the date of his order.

(3.) THE Appellate Authority observed that the report of the Rent Controller was not complete and, therefore, could not be treated to be a report in respect of the condition of the entire shop. He, however, observed that it stood proved that the southern wall had patches filled with cement and that the tenant himself had admitted that the wall on southern side had been repaired by him to put it in its original condition. The Appellate Authority appraised the evidence on record and upheld the claim of the landlord that the building in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. For this purpose, the Appellate Authority placed reliance on the report of the landlord's expert Mr. Satya Dev Gupta in preference to the report of the tenant's expert Mr. B.C. Katyal. He observed that from the aforesaid report of Mr. Satya Dev Gupta, it was apparent that the building was about 100 years old and its walls had developed huge cracks which were 7' to 11' high and 3" to 4" wide. It was also observed that a part of the portion of the wall had been covered by the tenant with a curtain and the expert was not allowed to remove the curtain to examine the condition of the wall. It has also been observed that in the cross-examination only general suggestions were put to the expert and none of his findings were specifically questioned. On the other hand, the tenant had not made Mr. Bodh Raj Dhall available for cross- examination because in his examination-in-chief, he had supported the allegation of the landlord about the depression of the roof. The other expert of the tenant Mr. B.C. Katyal was duly made available for cross-examination and the Appellate Authority found various discrepancies and contradictions in his statement and the statement of the tenant. For example, the expert in his statement claimed that he had used one wooden stair to inspect the roof whereas the tenant stated that he had used the regular staircase. Again, the expert claimed to have inspected the wall which had been concealed by putting a curtain by the tenant while the tenant maintained that it was not so done as the expert had not asked him to remove the curtain. In view of the contradictions in the testimonies of the tenant and his expert, the Appellate Authority concluded that no reliance could be placed on the report of the tenant's expert Mr. B.C. Katyal. Accordingly, the finding of the Rent Controller that the shop in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was upheld.