HAKUMAT RAI Vs. ANAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord Anand Paul sought the ejectment of the tenant Hakumat Rai from the premises, in dispute, consisting of a tabela inter alia on the ground that the tenant had used the same in such a manner that they had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The premises were in a dilapidated condition and were likely to fall any moment. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that he had been using them for keeping fuel wood, i.e. as a tal. They were in good condition and were not likely to collapse. The learned Rent Controller found that the said premises were unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed against the tenant. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against him. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the report, Exhibit A.2, of Shri Komal Singh, P.W.1, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Even Hakumat Rai, tenant, who appeared as P.W.5, admitted in his cross-examination that one beam of the verandah was cracked and it had been supported by a wooden support. According to the report of Komal Singh, P.W.1, Exhibit A.2, to which there is no rebuttal, the verandah is very old. The beam of this verandah is cracked and that it has been supported by a wooden support. He also deposed that the remaining portion of the roof of the verandah was bent downwards. No evidence was led on behalf of the tenant in rebuttal thereto. Both the authorities below have accepted the testimony of Komal Singh, expert, P.W. and I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the authorities below. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Meja Singh v. Karam Singh, 1981 P.L.R. 36 : 1981(2) RCR 469 that a building in possession of a tenant, if becomes unsafe or unfit for human habitation, then the same could be got vacated by the landlord from the tenant and the tenant could not be heard to say that the building was used either for merely tethering cattle or for strong goods for the expression "human habitation" cannot be said to have been used by the legislation to convey a meaning that it refers to a building which is used by human being for actual residence. A building is inhabited by a human being for the moment he is present therein and if a building is not safe or fit for a moment's habitation of human being, then such a building would be considered unsafe and unfit for human habitation.