PARAS RAM Vs. SHIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but allowed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE landlord Shiv Kumar sought the ejectment of his tenant Paras Ram from the shop in dispute, inter alia on the ground that it had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the tenant had constructed a big furnace in the front portion of the shop and had started manufacturing soap articles and, thus, he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building. The ejectment application was filed on April 8, 1982. In the written statement, the tenant controverted the said allegations. It was pleaded that the shop was taken on rent for manufacturing soap and this was being done since the inception of the tenancy. The Rent Controller appointed a Local Commissioner for the inspection of the shop as per the order dated September 27, 1982. Sh. Mangal Singh who was appointed as such, filed his report dated October 20, 1982, Exhibit A-2. However objections were raised against the said report by the tenant though there is no such provision under Order 20VI Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure Rule 10 of the said order of the Code provides that the Court, or with the permission of the Court any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report or as to his report as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. The tenant never sought such permission of the Court to examine the Local Commissioner under the said provision. The learned Rent Controller negatived the pleas raised by the landlord and, therefore, dismissed the ejectment application though he had accepted the report of the Local Commissioner as such. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority, on the basis of the report of the local Commissioner reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that by discharging the smoke inside the shop and by placing the fuel wood there, the tenant had certainly impaired the value and utility of the shop. The report of the Local Commissioner led credence to the fact that the age of the building was approximately fifty years. That being so, the shop had outlived its age. It was also observed that the report of the Local Commissioner remained unimpeached in spite of the objections raised against it. In view of these findings, the eviction order was passed.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the shop, in dispute, is on rent with the tenant since long. Vide rent note, Exhibit D-1, the rent was enhanced, because the tenant was not prepared to vacate the premises. Thus the mere execution of the said rent note will not make the building fit when it has been found as a fact that it has outlived its age being an old building constructed more than 50 years back. In view of the report of the Local Commissioner, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the tenant to challenge the finding of the Appellate Authority.