BABU RAM Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an application under order 14. Rule 5, read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code, moved by the defendant-appellant in proceedings pending for his eviction at the instance of the landlord, petitioner-respondent, on the ground that the premises in question were unfit or unsafe for human habitation. The appellant sought an issue to be framed regarding the bona fides of the landlord-petitioner respondent, in filing the application in question. This application was moved after the petitioner evidence had been closed and the appellant had been granted quite a few adjournments to produce his evidence. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application as being mala fide having been only with a view to prolong the proceedings.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for both side, I find that the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller was not unjustified. The petitioner landlords mala fide or bona fide are irrelevant when it comes to the decision of the factual position as to whether the premises in question are unfit or unsafe for human habitation. Either it is or it is not. If it is unsafe or unfit for the purpose in question, then the question of mala fides of the petitioner landlord neither can be challenged not would be relevant. I, therefore, find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed with costs.

(3.) The parties are directed to appear before the Rent controller on 29.9.1905.