(1.) THIS is landlords' revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that the same had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was pleaded that the western wall of the premises along with the staircase had fallen down inside therein. The re-construction of the whole of the staircase was so extensive and fundamental in character that it could not be carried out if the tenant reminded in possession thereof. The Northern wall had also cracks and it called for repairs. In the written statement, the allegations made in the eviction application were controverted. The Rent Controller found that the premises, in question, were not unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that landlords did not require them for re-construction. Consequently, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal, an application was filed on behalf of the landlords for the appointment of local commissioner, which was allowed. Shri Satish Bajaj, Advocate, a local commissioner, reported that the western wall of the shop had totally fallen. Earlier at the trial, Surinder Mohan Sahni, Overseer, Cantonment Board, A.W. 1 has appeared as an expert witness and has deposed that the western wall of the shop as well as the chaubara on the first floor of the demised premises were no more in existence then. In spite of this, it was held by the Appellate Authority that as the remaining walls and the roof were intact and in good condition as found by the local commissioner, it could not be said that the shop, in dispute, had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find force in the contention raised on their behalf.