ASHOK KUMAR MIDHA Vs. DAYAWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision before this court against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, where his eviction has been ordered from the premises in dispute on the ground that the demised building is in dilapidated condition. The petitioner is the tenant in the premises from the year 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent -landlord had filed eviction petition raising three grounds, namely, non -payment of rent, change of user and that the building is in dilapidated condition. On the first two grounds, she failed as it was not proved that the petitioner is in arrears of rent or that there is any change of user. As far as the building being in dilapidated condition is concerned, it was submitted that the pleaded case was that the roof of the shop in question was dilapidated. The expert, who appeared in the court, could not prove the fact that the building was in dilapidated condition. He had not issued any notice to the petitioner before inspection of the shop. No instruments were used to find out the life of the building. He was not a qualified person. He had travelled beyond the pleadings as the opinion could be given only regarding condition of the roof, whereas he had mentioned about the walls, plaster thereof and also the flooring. In fact, there were minor cracks, which could be repaired, hence, it could not be claimed that the building was in dilapidated condition. He further submitted that the so -called expert had stated in his cross -examination that the building was in good condition when he had inspected the same. He further submitted that the building was not very old. There were other shops in the vicinity, which were constructed at the same time and were in good condition. In case, the shop in question in which the petitioner is carrying on his business had been in dilapidated condition, he would not have put his life into danger.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. The expert, who was produced by the landlord, is a retired Sub Divisional Engineer, who had been dealing with the civil work during his service career, including preparation of estimates, supervising the work of contractors and also payment thereof, hence, it cannot be said that he was not competent or qualified to assess the condition of the building.

(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below that the building in question was in dilapidated condition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.