SURJAN SINGH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short "the Act"), the tenant-petitioner has challenged the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 16.1.2004 whereby he has been ordered to be evicted from the demised shop on the ground that the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and order dated 5.5.2004 passed by the learned Appellate Authority whereby the order of the learned Rent Controller has been affirmed.

(2.) THE landlord filed ejectment petition against the tenant on the grounds that the tenant is in arrears of rent from 25.4.1991 to 24.4.1994 for 36 months amounting to Rs. 1,125/- along with house tax of Rs. 140.60. Another ground for ejectment is the change of user of the demised shop. It has been stated that the shop was let out by the landlord for running electric goods shop but the same has been changed and converted into Saraffa shop under the name and style of M/s. Surjan Singh and Sons and the same has been done without getting the prior written or oral permission of the landlord. The eviction has been sought also on the ground that the building is more than 100 years old and has outlived its age as the demised shop has developed cracks in the walls and the walls have left their joints. The building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It has been averred that the tenant had tried to make unauthorised additions and alterations in the shop without seeking the permission of the landlord or the Court and in this way he had impaired the value and utility of the demised shop.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller held that the tenant is not in arrears of rent as he had already paid the rent for the disputed period and, therefore, his eviction cannot be ordered on that ground. The ground regarding change of user was also negatived by the learned Rent Controller and it was held that the tenant is carrying on the electric business in the demised shop ever since the creation of tenancy in his favour. However, on the ground of building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the trial Court after considering the evidence produced on record came to the conclusion that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the tenant is liable to be evicted from the demised shop. Accordingly, the tenant was ordered to be evicted from the demised shop on the basis of the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.