MAYA DEVI Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 2467 of 1984 and Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1342 and 2139 of 1985, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

(2.) LAL Chand Bansal, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Amar Nath who is in occupation of the shop in dispute, and his tenant, Maya Devi, who is in occupation of the demised premises, i.e. first floor of another shop primarily on the ground that the buildings had be come unfit and unsafe for human habitation. During the pendency of the eviction petition against him, he moved an application for premises to effect repairs thereto. Both the eviction petition and the said petition were consolidated and vide composite order dated April 27, 1982, the learned Rent Controller found that the building had not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As such, the eviction petition was dismissed and the tenant was allowed to effect the repairs. However, on appeal, the 'learned' Appellate Authority appointed a Local Commissioner on the basis of whose report and the evidence on the record, it was concluded by it that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against him. The ejectment of the tenant Maya Devi, as already observed, who also sought separately, on the same ground, namely, that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the said case, both the authorities below came to the conclusion that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and as such ordered her eviction therefrom. Dissatisfied with the same, Maya Devi, tenant, filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2467 of 1984 whereas Amar Nath, tenant, has Filed Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1342 and 2139 of 1985.

(3.) REPORT dated September 12, 1985, has been filed by the Local Commissioner. He visited the sites in the presence of the parties and their counsel.