SUHAG WANTI Vs. SOM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHOPAT Rai Chopra alias Parma Nand, father of Som Dutt respondent-landlord, let out the demised premises to Durga Dass, husband of Suhag Wanti, respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on a monthly rent of Rs 4.50 Ps. on 10.4.1963 for a period of one year less a day. Durga Dass also executed a rent note in favour of Chopat Rai. After the expiry of the period of tenancy, Durga Dass became a statutory tenant of the demised premises. Chopat Rai thereafter died and the tenancy devolved on his son Som Dutt and after the death of Durga Dass all the respondents became the tenants under the petitioner on the same terms and conditions. A petition for ejectment was thereafter filed by Som Dutt on 3.2.1984 on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondents contested the petition and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(2.) SOM Dutt appeared as AW-1 and also examined Kuldip Singh Saini, an Architect as AW-2 and proved that site plan Ex.A1, rent note Ex.A2, report Ex.A3 and the plain Ex.A4. The tenants, on the other hand, examined Sohan Lal and Suresh Kumar Arora as RW-1 and RW-2, respectively. The Rent Controller examined the evidence on record and in particular that of Som Dutt and Kuldip Singh Saini, who had given his report Ex.P4 and concluded that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Controller also placed reliance on the statement of RW-1 Sohan Lal, one of the tenants, who admitted in his evidence that the entire building was made of small bricks embedded in mud plaster and that a shop which was a part of the same building and in possession of one Udho Ram had fallen down. He also admitted that when Kuldip Singh Saini had visited the site, he had observed that one portion of the roof of the verandah and one of the rooms had been given artificial supports. The Rent Controller accordingly held that the building appeared to be very old and had been made of smalls bricks and from the evidence of the respondents themselves, it appeared that it was in a very dilapidated condition. The ejectment application was accordingly allowed vide order dated 8.8.1985. The matter was thereafter taken in an appeal by the tenants, but the same too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 3.9.1987.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their assistance.