JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 946 of and 947 of 1986 as one of the points involved is common in both the cases.

(2.) LANDLORD Raj Kumar sought ejectment of his two tenants, namely, Jagdish Kumar and Ved Parkash from the premises, in dispute inter alia on the grounds that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the tenants have sublet the premises. According to the landlord, the first floor of the building on the shop, in dispute, has become unsound and dangerous and it is not fit for human habitation and both the shops, in dispute, are a part of the whole building. In the written statement, the tenants pleaded that the shops' premises are in good condition and the same were let out to them by making the same as a new construction. The entire portion was renovated and was still in good condition and not unsafe and unfit for human habitation, as alleged. On appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the shops, in dispute, have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to the Rent Controller, it is the admitted case of the tenant that prior to the leasing of the premises, some beams had been erected underneath the roof of the shop. Thus, the natural inference is that it might have been necessitated due to the weak condition of the roof. That by itself shows that the structure of the shop portion is not quite fit. This portion is very old one and the walls have only been build with mud mortar. The left side wall has many vertical cracks and the parapet has also been damaged. According to the expert witnesses, even the foundations of the walls have sunk and the earth was found falling on the false ceiling put in the shop. Even the partition wall which was constructed some time prior to the year 1970, has a vertical crack. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal eviction orders passed in both the applications were maintained.

(3.) THE main controversy between the parties in both the petitions is as to whether the premises, in dispute, had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioners contended that when the shops were let out in the years 1970, they were newly constructed and renovated and the chaubara thereon had already fallen, and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be held that the premises, in dispute, have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.