M.S. BHATNAGAR Vs. O.N. AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment of the Appellate Authority Rohtak dated 29th January, 1981. An application for ejectment was filed by the landlord against his tenant inter alia on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was contested by the tenant who denied the allegations of the petitioner.

(2.) THE Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the building was not unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Consequently, he dismissed the application. On appeal, the judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed by the appellate Authority. The landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) THE commission, after inspection of the building, has come to the conclusion that the portion in dispute is not fit for human habitation. His opinion is supported by reasons given therein. In the report, he stated that some of the doors have been eaten up. He has further stated that walls of some of the rooms are bulging out and some bal as and the wooden planks in the rooms are worn out. He has also opined three balas from one end and four from the other end of the roof of the Verandah are bent from the middle. He also pointed out a crack in the wall of a room on the first floor. The report is supported by the witnesses produced by the petitioner. There are no grounds to disbelieve the report of Mr. Gupta who made the same after spot inspection. Another report of a Commissioner appointed in another case between the parties has been produced in this Court by the tenant. That report is dated 8th September, 1981. The report has not been properly proved in this case. Admittedly, the house is very old and there might be some deterioration in the building after the said report was made. In the circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the said report. It may also be mentioned that the house in dispute is a part of bigger house and some of its portions have already fallen.