KAILASHO DEVI Vs. CHHABI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging findings of facts recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur in its judgment dated 10.10.1983. The learned Appellate Authority has relied upon the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue as to whether the building has become unfit or unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that landlord respondent Chhabi Parkash filed an application under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant-petitioner, inter alia on the ground that the building has become unfit or unsafe. The landlord-respondent has examined an expert, namely, Shri Parshotam Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer who has proved his report Ex.A1 and has opined that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The aforementioned expert was not subjected to any cross-examination at the instance of the tenant-petitioner. However, the Rent Controller himself visited the spot and recorded an inspection note. He concluded that although the construction is very old, yet the building appears to be sound. On the basis of his inspection note, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the landlord-respondent. The learned Appellate Authority on appeal, accepted the appeal by concluding that inspection note of the Rent Controller was silent on material particulars and it did not reveal that he in fact went on the roof to find out holes in the roof and that he had tested soundness of the sleepers underneath the roof. Some other reasons have also been recorded by the Appellate Authority in support of the conclusion that the building had in fact become unfit or unsafe for human habitation. The view of the Appellate Authority can be gleaned from paragraph 13 which reads as under :

(3.) NO one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.