JASWANT SINGH Vs. MANMOHAN LAL & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An eviction petition was preferred by respondent Manmohan Lal and his wife Komal Pasrihcha seeking ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question as the same had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and also on the ground of arrears of rent.

(2.) It was stated that petitioner was inducted as tenant by one Kartar Singh in one shop of ground floor of the building @ Rs. 65.00 p.m. Petitioner executed a rent note with regard to terms of tenancy in favour of Kartar Singh. Same was registered on 08.05.1992. Respondents later purchased the property from Kartar Singh. They sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground that respondent was in arrears of rent with effect from 01.04.1995. The entire building where the shop was situated had become unfit and unsafe for human inhabitation. They claimed that building was more than 100 years old and was constructed with Nanak Shahi bricks. The building material had lost his adhesive power. The bricks had given way and there were big wholes and cracks in the walls. The joints of the building had disintegrated. The wood work used had been inflicted with termite. Roof of the building had sagged. Same was the situation of floor. Thus, building required reconstruction for which ejectment of tenant was necessary. In support of their case, landlords examined 5 witnesses. Plea was resisted by the tenant who himself stepped into the witness box as RW3 and examined 3 other witnesses. As arrears of rent were paid during the pendency of petition, this ground did not survive. During the course of trial, various site plans were placed on record. Both sides submitted photographs of the building and examined expert witnesses. Trial court, however, came to the conclusion that landlord had failed to prove that building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, thus, rejected the petition. Aggrieved, landlord filed the appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar. He reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and ordered ejectment of petitioner. Aggrieved, instant revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) Before this court, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the appellate authority. He submits that building is only 50/60 years old. Evidence has been wrongly appreciated by the appellate court. He has referred to the photographs which were placed on record to contend that building is perfectly safe.