DEV RAJ Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the Courts below on the ground that the tenanted premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant over a room (Chaubara) on the first floor for the last many years. The ground floor of the premises in dispute is in possession of the landlord. The landlord sought ejectment of the petitioner from the first floor of the tenanted premises on the ground that the entire building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and until and unless the tenant vacates the first floor of the tenanted premises, the property in question cannot be reconstructed.

(3.) AFTER considering, the evidence on the record learned Rent Controller returned a finding after relying upon the report of the expert produced by the landlord and taking into consideration the photographs produced by the photographer and the notice of the Municipal Committee that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reappreciated the entire evidence. It noticed that Dev Raj RW2, son of the tenant, admitted in cross-examination that the tenanted premises is 100 years old and made up of small bricks. The roof of the building was repaired about 15 years ago and the walls of the Chaubara are not plastered. There are holes in the wall and bricks are taken out of the wall. The roof of the shop of Rattan Lal is made of Karis. The learned Appellate Authority also examined the evidence of the expert Sohal Lal Sharma (PW3) produced by the landlord as well as the statement of the expert Vijay Kumar (RW1) produced by the tenant and concluded that the condition of the walls and roof of the demised premises clearly show that the building is beyond repairs and unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It found that the expert produced by the tenant has not taken the photographs of the premises but when he was confronted with the photographs taken by the landlord, he admitted that the bricks shown fallen out from the walls in the photographs are correctly shown. The expert also admitted that he guessed the condition of the walls of the shop from the gap left between the racks placed in the shop and the wall. The learned Appellate Authority found that the expert produced by the tenant cannot be believed. It concluded that the condition of the shop on the ground floor is worse and it may not bear the load of the upper room (Chaubara) of the tenanted premises. If the ground floor is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and not the tenanted premises even then the petitioner is liable to be evicted as the condition of the building is to be seen collectively.