SARUP CHAND Vs. SIRI CHAND

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 the Appellate Authority, Barnala, recorded in its order dated 26.2.1999. It has reversed the judgment dated 7.10.1996 passed by the Rent Controller, Barnala. The Appellate Authority while accepting the appeal of the landlord-respondent has ordered ejectment of the tenant- petitioner on the principal grounds of personal necessity and that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the landlord-respondent filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the tenant-petitioner from the demised premises on the ground that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as contemplated by Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The other ground pleased was that the demised premises were required by the landlord-respondent for his own occupation and personal necessity as envisaged by Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Act. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition by repelling both the grounds holding that it was a case of minor repair. The Rent Controller concluded that there is no evidence on record showing that the demised premises could be declared as unfit and unsafe for human habitation merely because roof of a chaubara on the first floor had fallen. According to the Rent Controller minor cracks were liable to be ignored. The Rent Controller further found that it was probable that there was no roof and that the construction of the roof was abandoned or that it had never been laid down. The afore-mentioned finding has been recorded on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner RW-2 who was an engineer because he failed to find any debris (malba) of the roof at the site. However, proceeding on the presumption that there was no roof it has been concluded that some cracks, bending of batons and dampness in the rest of the portion of the demised premises would not be sufficient to declare it as unfit and unsafe for human habitation but those were repairable.

(3.) ON an appeal filed by the landlord-respondent, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of unfit and unsafe as envisaged by Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The Appellate Authority re-appreciated the evidence and recorded its own view by reversing the findings of the Rent Controller which reads as under :-