DINA NATH Vs. KESHO RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition, whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) THE landlord sought ejectment of his tenant from the shop in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In written statement, the tenant controverted the said allegations. The learned Rent Controller found that neither the tenant has committed any act which is likely to impair the value and utility of demised shop nor is the demised shop, in any way, unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In view of that finding, the ejectment application was dismissed, vide order dated 23.12.1983. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller, with the observations that the evidence in the present case is insufficient to prove that the demised shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation because of the falling of its roof and that the roof, which presently existed, was reconstructed by the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) IN view of the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, I am of the firm view that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The said report was necessitated because, according to the Appellate Authority, the evidence in the present case was insufficient to prove that the demised shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation because of the falling of its roof and that the roof, which presently existed, was reconstructed by the tenant. Be that as it may, I do not find any flaw in the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court. Moreover, whether the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation or not, can only be verified by visiting the spot and the testimony of the witnesses produced by the respective parties is not of much consequence. Both the parties are interested to prove their cases in their own way and it was under these circumstances that an Advocate of this Court was appointed as the Local Commissioner. Thus, in view of the report of the Local Commissioner, with which I fully agree, I find that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf was thus wrong, illegal and improper.