NAND LAL Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the tenants under the respondents in a Nohra situate inside Urma Gate, Hansi, Distt. Hissar. Their ejectment was sought by the landlords through an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Rent Controller, Hansi, on two grounds, namely (i) non-payment of arrears of rent, and (ii) tht tthe demised Premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The petitioners having tendered the arrears of rent along with costs and interest, the first ground of ejectment was given by the landlords. On the second ground, however, the parties led their evidence and the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, and, vide order dated 7-2-1977, directed ejectment of the petitioners. An appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned District Judge, Hissar, as an Appellate Authority under the Act, was dismissed, vide judgment dated 20.10.1978, and the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the demised premises was unsafe and unfit for human habitation was affirmed. The petitioners have now come in revision before this Court against the orders of eviction by the authorities below.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I find no ground to disturb the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities below. No infirmity therein could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Har Narain AW-1 an Overseer of Municipality, Hansi, has deposed that the wall of the demised Nohra was in a highly dangerous condition and, on his report, notice Exhibit A-1 was issued by the Municipality to the landlords. Om Parkash AW-2, who prepared the site-plan Ex. A-2, also deposed that the southern wall of the Nohra was in a very bad shape and was leaning towards the main street. Its bricks were protruding out and life of mud-mortar was over. Serious cracks in the walls had occurred and the wood Karris had cracked and were pending. The evidence also shows that attempts were made by the petitioners to carry out some repairs to the wall but, unless fresh construction was made, the dilapidated condition of the demised premises could not be remedied. Even the withes produced by the petitioners admitted the dilapidated condition of the demisedNohra. Ramji Lal RW-1 admitted that the southern wall of the Norha had previously fallen. Its bricks were protruding out and some repair were made. This position has been admitted by Sita Ram RW-2 and Nand Lal petitioner himself who appeared as RW-3. After due appreciation of the evidence, the authorities below concluded that the demised premises was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in the revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs. The petitioners are, however, allowed three months' time to vacate the demised premises on the condition that they shall pay or depsit the entire amount of arrears of rent including three months' rent in advance in the Court of the Rent Controller within one month from today failing which, the landlords respondents shall have the right to eject the petitioners forthwith. Revision petition dismissed.