BRIJ LAL Vs. SHIV MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS ' application Under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent And Eviction), Act 1973 (for short the Act') seeking ejectment on the ground of nuisance and the premises being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, was allowed by learned Rent Controller by order dated June 1, 1987. Appeal there against was dismissed by the learned appellate authority vide order dated October 18, 1988. Hence this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner after submitting that the scope of interference by the High Court in a revision petition under the Rent Act is much wider than the scope of interference Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, tried to argue that the finding recorded by the authorities below to the effect that the premises, a shop in this case, has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, is erroneous in law. He in support of his submission referred to the report of the Local Commissioner who had found the roof to be intact. It was also submitted that onus to prove that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was on the landlords and they have utterly failed to discharge the same.

(3.) THE landlords have clearly averred that the condition of the shop is poor and its walls are in a damaged condition because of leakage of water through roof, which was in a damaged condition. The Local Commissioner noticed that there was a hole in the roof of the size of 1'x1-1/2' at one place and at other place the beams had either broken or had been damaged. By reference to other evidence, it could not be disputed that the walls of the shop arc kacha and that the shop is pretty old and that the condition of the rear wall is in a bad shape. The petition for ejectment was filed in the year 1984 and period of 12 years has gone by and during this period the condition of the shop must have further deteriorated. There is no evidence on the record to show that the walls were got repaired by the tenant or by the landlords at any time after the filing of the petition. The mere fact that the tenant has replaced the entire roof of the shop after putting an application Under Section 12 of the Act wherein he stated that the roof had damaged and he had erected walls/pillors to support the broken beams to avoid collapse in no way helps the petitioner, it rather proves that the shop was not in a fit condition to be used for human habitation. By replacing the roof, the tenant cannot defeat the right of the landlords to seek ejectment especially when the walls continued to be kacha and in a damaged condition. Moreover, the tenant was allowed to effect repairs in the roof but he in the garb of that order replaced the whole roof. a right that had accrued to the respondents, namely, to seek ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question on the ground that the same has become unsafe and unfit for bumen habitation, in my view, cannot be thwarted by the tenant by his own act. Reference in that behalf may be made to Balbir Kumar v. Kaka Ram, 1994 (1) Rent Control Reporter 259. The tenant now by replacing the roof cannot be heard to say that the premises are now fit and safe for human habitation or that the same can be used for sometime more.