GAURAN DEVI Vs. PREM NIDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlady Shrimati Gauran Devi sought the ejectment of the tenants from a portion of the building inter alia on the ground that the demised premises were an old building which had outlived its life. The entire structure had started bulging out and was showing cracks at various places. Its foundations had started setting down which had adversely affected it and consequently the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The roof of one room had previously fallen down being in rotten condition and that the walls had also left their original places. The other ground for eviction taken was that the landlady required the premise for her own use and occupation and for the family of her married son living with her. The accommodation already in her occupation was insufficient to meet her requirements. Originally, Mohan Lal was a tenant on the demised premises. On his death, his sons and the widow, became the tenants under the landlady. Out of them two of the tenants did not come forward to contest the ejectment application while the remaining respondent filed their joint written statement controverting the allegations made by the landlady. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises, in question, had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was also found that the landlady bonafide required the same for her bonafide personal necessity for the family of her son who was employed in the Army, and was residing with her. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, set aside the eviction order passed in favour of the landlady. Dissatisfied with the same, she had come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record. I am of the considered opinion that the whole approach of the Appellate Authority is illegal and improper and the finding with respect to the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation arrived at by the Rent Controller has been reversed arbitrarily and on surmises and conjectures by it. It is the common case of the parties that the building is an old one and it has got cracks as well. The roof of one of the rooms has also fallen. Moreover, the Municipal Corporation had also given notice for falling down the demised premises. According to the Appellate Authority the said notice by the Municipal corporation per se was no evidence that the building was really dangerous for public safety or that it required demolition. This approach of the Appellate Authority is wholly mis-conceived. Sat Pal, Building Inspector, appeared as A.W.