JAI RAM Vs. ACHHRU MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) Achhru Mal landlord sought ejectment of his tenant from the premises which consists of the lower storey of the house in dispute, inter alia on the ground that it is not fit and safe for human habitation. The tenant controverted the said allegations. The Rent Controller appointed a local commissioner to visit the spot and make a report. According to his report W/l, portions A, B and C are in good condition and the other portions are dilapidated and are not fit and safe for human habitation. Relying on the said report, it was held that the residential portion of the premises in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus, maintained the eviction order.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. In the report, the local commissioner has clearly stated that the house in dispute is not safe and fit for human habitation. Moreover, the tenant himself has admitted in another case between the parties that the house in dispute is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In these circumstances, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the said findings of both the authorities below. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.