BIMAL YADAV Vs. BHUSHAN KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.4.2005 passed by the learned Rent Controller as confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) IT may be noticed that the learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent, building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, impairment of the value and utility of the building in dispute and on the ground of change of user. However, the learned Appellate Authority ordered the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The reason for recording a finding that the petitioner was liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent was that the Courts below assessed the rent to be Rs. 500/- as against Rs. 250/- deposited by the petitioner-tenant. On 19th September, 2005, this court while issuing notice of motion was pleased to pass the following order :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the report of the Building Expert relied upon by the learned Courts below could not be taken into consideration as the same is qua part of the building which was not in possession of the petitioner-tenant, neither the same was rented out to him. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the report of the Building Expert is qua the whole building including the demised premises in possession of the petitioner. Furthermore this Court has been pleased to hold in the case of Sunder Dass and another v. Avinash Chander Sood, 1992(1) RCR(Rent) 18 (P&H) that a finding regarding building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation, is pure question of fact and concurrent finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below is not open to challenge in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Even the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are not perverse, which can be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction, as the petitioner-tenant failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the landlord showing that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation.