DHANPAT RAI Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order being assailed, dated 19.10.2002, rendered by the Rent Controller, Bathinda, eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered from the demised premises, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction, Act, 1949 (for short 'the Rent Act'). Appeal preferred against the said order failed and was dismissed on 15.12.2004. That is how, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court.

(2.) In short, ejectment of the petitioner was sought on the ground that the premises in question, which is a shop, and forms part of a building bearing No.MC 4704-A, has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was maintained that the building, as a whole, was in a dilapidated condition. So much so, the ceiling of upper portion of the roof was given support by constructing a pillar underneath. Walls and projection had developed cracks. In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the shop in question was an independent unit. No portion of the shop and even the first floor of the building was in a dilapidated condition. It was denied that the ceiling of the upper portion of the roof had given in. There were no cracks in any portion of the building including the demised premises. The building as a whole, as also the shop in question was, thus, fit for human habitation.

(3.) On a due and thoughtful consideration of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority concurrently concluded that clearly the outer portion of the building had developed cracks. The parapet had also broken down. Iron rods were seen coming out of the building, after the plaster had left its place and there was moisture in the roof as well as in the walls. Further, the building in question was extremely old as it was constructed about 70 years ago, and, thus, the only conclusion that could be arrived at, was that it had indeed become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.