MADAN GOPAL Vs. DIN DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition. The original landlord Dr. Madan Gopal has since died and now this petition, under orders of this Court passed in C. M. Nos. 3585 to 3587-CII of 1986, decided on November 17, 1986 is being pursued by his son Virender Pal Bhardwaj and daughter Smt. Bimal Devi; though both of them are having litigation in the Civil Court with regard to their entitlement to the estate of the deceased landlord.

(2.) THE sole ground on which eviction of the tenant has been pressed is that the demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is a shop in Ambala City. The tenant, of course, denied that the shop in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Either party supported its case and produced three witnesses. The Rent Controller, without discussing the evidence led, based the ejectment on the photograph of the premises placed on record. This photograph revealed that though the structure was of old design and apparently part of a structure which had been demolished and reconstructed, the danger, if any, to it had been occasioned by the demolition of the adjoining structure, a portion of which had been newly built. The Rent Controller blamed the landlord for exposing the building to the danger by leaving the adjoining passage uncovered. The Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, in appeal affirmed the view of the Rent Controller. He too did not discuss the evidence of the parties. The revision petition was preferred before the Financial Commissioner but by change of law transferred to his Court after admission.

(3.) THE order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, the Appellate Authority, and that of the Rent Controller are thus set aside and the matter remitted back to the Rent Controller, Ambala, to try this petition afresh giving opportunity to the parties to lead such further evidence as they consider necessary. Since the tenant has to combat with two applicants now, one totally hostile and the other slightly benign, it would be appropriate that the Court deciding the litigation between the two contending landlords shall also decide the eviction petition and, if thought proper, after the decision of the civil suit between the two landlords. The matter is thus remitted to that Rent Controller and for the purpose the file by routed through the Senior Sub-Judge Ambala, for proper assignment. This petition is accordingly allowed in these terms C.M. No. 1819-CII of 1987 is also disposed of. Case remanded.