AVINASH CHANDER SOOD Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition for eviction was filed by the landlord on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. His contention was that the roof has completely fallen down and the building was more than 90 years old. At the trial, the Local Commissioner, while inspecting the premises in dispute, gave a report to the effect that the roof of the portion towards eastern side towards bazar had completely fallen down. The contention, however, was that subsequent to the event, the tenant himself had relaid the roof. The court reasoned making reference to two decisions of the Supreme Court that if a fallen roof has been repaired, the condition cannot still said to be bad for a landlord to urge for eviction.

(2.) THE appellate court reiterated the findings of the Rent Controller and held that there was no scope for intervention. The appellate court had made the observations about the emphasis of the evidence of the building expert examined by the landlord that on account of pressure on the foundation on the property in dispute, the walls had gone out of plumb and the walls could no more stand the load of the building. The appellate court held that the tenant's expert did not give any such assessment of the depression of the foundation. It was also a case where there were minor variations in the respective reports of the experts. While the expert examined by the landlord had given opinion that rafters had been changed, the tenant's expert made no such observations. The court held that the repairs effected during the pendency of the ejectment petition by the tenant had brought the condition of the building fit enough and the building could not be said to be unfit and unsafe to sustain the plea for ejectment. The lower appellate court also observed that the landlord had taken action for ejectment of yet another tenant, he had failed in his action in respect of another tenant and, therefore, the landlord cannot succeed in this petition also.

(3.) WE may pose different type of question to existing facts to arrive at a proper answer. Admittedly, the roof had fallen in this case. If the tenant had got caught in debris, would he be alive in a court to say that since he had survived the building was still safe? It is an absurd approach to understanding normal expression like a building being unfit for human habitation. It was a case where the roof had actually fallen and by the providence, the tenant did not get caught under it. If he was resourceful enough to restore the roof, for, he had a business to carry, it cannot lead to a situation of the landlord losing an opportunity to an ejectment to restore the building. Old and decrepit buildings are eyesores. They are the very antithesis of development and progress. The old giving place to new shall be the order of the day. We have our own festivals, such as 'Bhogi' or 'Lohri', where we celebrate discarding the old and pushing for the new. All this would come to no meaning if we must keep tinkering with the old and feel satisfied that all is OK. Wearing patched clothes or restoring a dilapidated construction could be options where poverty prevails to inhibit a new raiment or a whole new building. That ought not to be taken as the only option. If a landlord cannot decide for his own building on whether he will completely go for a new construction, when the roof has fallen, who else could? A tenant has fortunately survived a major catastrophe and, therefore, the construction shall be allowed to continue the way the tenant feels himself convenient is a whole wrong understanding of landlord -tenant jurisprudence.