MOHINDER SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very fact that the first floor of the house in dispute was in occupation of the landlord proves that the building was safe and was fit for human habitation. According to the learned counsel A.W.5, Motia Kaur, wife of the landlord admitted that they wanted to increase the rent which fact has not been considered by the authorities below. It was further contended that there was no evidence of any cracks etc. or that the building was likely to fall at any time. Thus argued the learned counsel, the findings of the authorities below in this behalf are wrong, illegal and misconceived.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Primarily, it is a question of fact based on the appreciation of the evidence and could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. Not only that, even the allegation of the tenant that the landlord had made certain holes in the roof was found to be false by the Local Commissioner. Jaswant Singh landlord himself appeared in the witness box as A.W.6 and he categorically stated that it is an old house being an evacuee property and can fall at any moment. The walls and floors are weak and have developed cracks and the roofs also leak. In the cross-examination, this statement was never challenged. Not only that, even expert produced by the tenant R.W.4 Bakhtawar Singh Sidhu, Retired S.D.OP (B&R), Punjab, admitted in his cross-examination that it is an old construction and the floor of the rear room is Kutcha and the roof of the said is black due to heavy smoke. The house in question might be 80/90 years old. The construction of the demised premises is second grade and is of mostly small bricks. He has further stated that the wood of the house is old. In view of this evidence, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent finding of fact to interfere with in revision petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, with advance rent for three months and along with an undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord is filed within one month with the Rent Controller.