SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. SHANTI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Shanti Parkash, landlord, sought the ejectment of the tenant Shamsher Singh, from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that it had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was alleged in paragraph 2(B) of the ejectment application, that the shop, in question, was a very old construction and was in a dilapidated condition and as such it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It had got cracks and there were artificial supports in the back rooms. The landlord wanted to re-construct it after demolishing the same and that he had got the necessary funds for that purpose. In the written statement, the tenant denied the allegation made therein. He also stated that the shop was pucca built and was perfectly fit and safe for human habitation. There was no question of the shop being in a dilapidated condition. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the shop, in question, was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and for carrying on business and as such, the tenant was liable to be ejected therefrom on that ground. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against him. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against him. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a fit case where a local Commissioner be appointed by this Court for inspection of the shop, in dispute. According to the learned counsel, there is no artificial support to the premises, in dispute, as found by both the authorities below. Only a wooden balla has been replaced in its roof which, according to the learned counsel, could not be said to be an artificial support. It was also contended that there was no admission on the part of Bakhtawar Singh, R.W. 6, in this behalf and that his testimony has not been properly appreciated. An argument was also raised that the replacement of a kacha part of roof by a new kacha part is not a structural alteration. Reference in this regard was made to Ved Parkash v. Khushi Ram, 1973 RCR(Rent) 252, Puran Chand v. Roshan Lal, 1975 RCR(Rent) 504 and Dr. Jagmohan Singh v. Smt. Bimla Devi, 1975 RCR(Rent) 506.