SOM DUTT Vs. VIDHYA PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of Shri Kunji Lal, who was the tenant in the shop in question, situated at Satta Bazar, Rewari, has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 28.02.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, exercising the powers of Appellate Authority under the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide which the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the demised premises on the ground that the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent Vidhya Parkash (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') filed an ejectment application against a Kunji Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') under Section 13 of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the shop in question, which was under his occupancy at the monthly rent of Rs. 12.50 plus house tax. The said ejectment application was filed on two grounds, namely non-payment of rent and the shop in question having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenant hotly contested the said ejectment application. On the first date of hearing, the demanded rent was tendered along with interest and costs. The allegations regarding the demised shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation were denied. It was pleaded that the ejectment application was filed by the landlord with intention to coerce the tenant to increase the rent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority, has submitted that the finding of the Appellate Authority to the effect that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation is not correct finding as the same is contrary to the evidence available on the record. Primarily, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Appellate Authority has completely overlooked the admission/statement made by the expert witness i.e. Ram Bilas, retired Chief Engineer (AW.1) in his cross-examination. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that this witness has admitted that the age of the building is not the criteria for declaring the building unfit and unsafe. He also admitted that while examining the building, he did not get the building excavated. He further admitted that no through and through cracks in the wall were noticed by him. This expert witness has also admitted that he did not calculate the loads coming on the wall from the roof. It has also been admitted by him that he did not go to the top of the roof and he did not mentioned whether there was any depression in the roof or not. In view of the aforesaid alleged admissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Appellate Authority was not justified in depending upon the cracks and depression etc. shown by the said expert witness in his report. His admission completely negatives the report submitted by him. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decisions of this Court in Puran Chand and another v. Roshan Lal, Advocate, 1975 (RCR) Rent 504 (P&H) : 1977(2) Rent Law Reporter 621, (The building suffered a few cracks does not mean that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.), Pitamber Lal v. Ram Lal and others, 1984(2) RCR (Rent) 504 (P&H) : 1984(2) Rent Law Reporter 491 (From the mere fact that the building suffers from cracks, it does not necessarily follow that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.) and Trilok Chand v. Smt. Dropati Devi, 1990(1) RCR(Rent) 30 (P&H) : 1989(2) Rent Law Reporter 596 (Solely the building being old and being built of small bricks is no ground to assume or infer that it has outlived its life and unsafe and unfit for human habitation.).