HARI MOHAN SINGH Vs. MAJOR BHUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition in whose favour eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller but was set aside in appeal.

(2.) THE landlord Hari Mohan sought ejectment of his tenant Maj. Bhup Singh (now deceased) from the premises, in dispute, measuring 4976 squuare yards given on yearly rent of Rs. 420/- for the period from 1.12.1947 to 31.1.1952, vide registered lease deed dated 25.1.1947. The premises were let out for starting a Technical Engineering Workshop. The tenant continued to remain in occupation of the demised premises as a statutory tenant after the expirty of the lease period of five years. The ejectment of the tenant was sought, inter alia on the ground that the tenant impaired the value and utility of the premises, in dispute by demolishing roofs of the rooms of the building constructed thereon and the tenant has ceased to occupy he premises and was no more running any boundary business therein for the last two years preceding the date of filing the application i.e., 25.2.1974. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the said allegations of the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant has failed to occupy the premises, in dispute, for period more than four moths preceding the date of filing the application and has also impaired the utility of the demised premises. Consequently, eviction order was passed on 25.11.1976. In appeal filed by the tenant, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller. Surprisingly enough that the evidence lead by the parties was not at all discussed and it was simply stated that the statements of the witnesses produced by the landlord are not according to the facts. Consequently, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was set aside by the Appellate Authority. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord Hari Mohan has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) DURING the pendency of this petition, the landlord Hari Mohan moved an application (Civil Misc. No. 4570-CII of 1985) purporting to be under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the eviction petition. It was alleged therein that the building where the Boundary business was being run has fallen since long and the entire machinery has been removed form the premises, in dispute. Reply was filed on behalf of the tenant. Since the allegations made in the aforesaid application were denied, this Court, vide its order dated 16.10.1985, appointed Shri Rajinder Krishan Aggarwal, Advocate of this Court, as the Local Commissioner. Report dated 9.11.1985 has been filed by the Local Commissioner. The spot was visited by the Local Commissioner in the presence of the parties along with their counsel. He has made a very detailed report, mentioning all the necessary details. He has categorically stated that the boundary wall show as 'CH' is in a dilapidated condition whereas the condition of the boundary wall shown as 'KL' is still good. He also reported that although no part of any room, show in the site plan, has actually fallen down yet the condition of the entire building cannot be termed as good for the reasons mentioned therein. Thus, going through the said report, I find that the building, in question, was not in a fit condition for human habitation and, secondly, the premises are not being used for the purpose for which the same were let out originally.