PIARA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE premises, in dispute is a residential building mentioned as Kothi in the rent-note, which was rented out to the Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, through the Registrar of Companies, on a monthly rent of Rs. 249/-. The landlords petitioners sought the ejectment of his tenant, inter alia, on the ground that Piara Singh landlord, who is the owner of the premises in dispute, is residing in England and he has decided to permanently settle at Jullundur and thus he bonafide requires the premises for his own use and occupation. It was further alleged that the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the landlord intends to rebuild it to make the same fit for human habitation. The ejectment application was filed on 3.11.1980. In written statement filed on behalf of the Union of India, the said allegations were controverted. It was denied that the demised premises are required by the landlords for their personal use and occupation. It was also denied that the premises are in a dilapidated condition and they are not unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Both the authorities below have negatived the plea of the landlord add thus dismissed their application. The view taken by them is that, since the premises, in dispute were let out for running an office and this being a non-residential purpose, the landlords not entitled to seek ejectment of their tenant on the ground of personal requirement. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant evidence on the record. The landlord, in order to prove that the demised premises have become unsafe and unfair for human habitation, produced their expert Sushil Kumar Architecture as PW 4 who had earlier submitted his report, dated 3.2.1981 (Exhibit PW 4). He has categorically stated that the building is worn out from various points, that there are serious cracks in its front wall, that the building has second class construction and that two rooms at the back, which is Verandah and bath room, had fallen down. Similar is the statement of the landlord Mohan Singh as PW 5. He appeared on 20.7.1981 in the Court and categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that one Verandah and one bath room had fallen, the widows and doors of the building were broken and it is beyond repairs. Surprisingly enough, there was no cross-examination of these witnesses on these points. The Courts below have relied upon the statement of Shri B.S. Gill RW 2 who is an Assistant Engineer. He inspected the premises, in dispute, on 25.3.1981 when he made report Exhibit RW 2/1. Both the report and his statement not inspire confidence and are not worthy of reliance. Whether, same portion of the premises, in dispute, have fallen or not it could not be a matter of dispute and could be easily verified. Moreover, the statements of PW 4 and PW 5 were never challenged in their cross-examination. Thus the whole approach of the authorities below in this behalf was wrong, illegal and misconceived and thus the findings arrived at is vitiated, being improper.