RAJ KUMAR Vs. GURDWARA SANGATPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ejectment of the petitioner was ordered from the demised premises i.e. a shop, vide order dated 23.09.2011, rendered by the Rent Controller, Amritsar. As even the appeal preferred against the said order failed and was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.03.2014, tenant is before this court vide this revision petition.

(2.) In defence, it was admitted that respondentGurdwara Sangatpura was the owner of the demised premises. But as regards the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it was stated that there was no cracks in the walls and the shop in question was fit to conduct business. Further, the premises was let out to the petitioner to carry out cycle repair works and the same was being used for the purpose it was let out. Insofar as the personal bona fide need of the respondent, it was averred that the existing passage leading to Gurdwara was sufficient and thus, the respondent did not require the premises for any expansion.

(3.) On a due and comprehensive consideration of the matter in issue, and the evidence on record, both the courts concurrently concluded that the eviction petition was filed by the respondent through Kashmir Singh (AW1), who was duly authorized vide a resolution Ex.A2. To prove that the premises in question had indeed become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, respondent examined Parmanand Civil Engineer/building expert (AW3), who proved his report in original as Annexure A4 and the site plan as Annexure A5. An analysis of the said report reads as thus: