TULSI DASS AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. BACHAN MALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenants' petition against whom eviction order was passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlady Smt Bachan Mala sought the ejectment of her tenants Tulsi Dass and Nirmal Dass sought the ejectment of her tenants Tulsi Dass and Nirmal Dass from the premises in dispute on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the landlady the premises were earlier rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/ - plus house tax but with effect from Ist of September, 1981, the rent of the disputed premises was fixed at Rs. 250/ - per month including the house tax. This was done with the consent of the parties. It was pleaded that the tenants had committed or caused to be committed such acts as were, likely to impair materially the value and utility of the demised premises; they had raised walls and pillars on the roof of a part of the demised premises; that they had installed a "lana" much(sic) ne on the roof in the shed, as a result of which additional weight had come on the walls and roof which were already very weak and not in a position to bear such additional weight. It was also stated that the tenants had constructed a grave (Kabar) in the Sahan from the stairs and thereby the frequent use of the stairs had been obstructed. Several dozen of big cracks had appeared in the walls. The joints had separated and thus the entire building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and it could fall down at any time. Even the tenants, in order to save themselves had put up 15/20 support to the roof in order to save it from falling down. In the written statement the tenants denied the said allegations. It was pleaded that earlier an ejectment application dated 7.6 1977 was filed on this very ground vide copy Exhibit R1, but therein the parties on 20.8 1981 as the rent was enhanced from Rs. 80/ - to Rs 250/ - per month with effect from September, 1981, and the ejectment application was dismissed as withdrawn. The present application, filed on 3.9.1982 was not a bonafide one. Nothing has happened after the dismissal of the earlier application as withdrawn. The case was fixed for arguments before the learned Rent Controller, on 8.5.1986 when an application was moved on behalf of the landlady for inspection of the soot by the Rent Controller himself. On that application, learned Counsel for the tenants made the following statement:

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the tenant Petitioners submitted that the application filed by the landlady was not bonafide because in the earlier ejectment application, which was filed on 7.6 -1977, same ground that the building his become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was taken but the application was got dismissed as withdrawn when the tenants agreed to enhance the rent from Rs. 80/ - to Rs. 250/ - per month. This, argued the learned counsel, the present application filed on 3.9.1932 on the same ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, was not maintainable. In any case, argued the learned Counsel, the learned Rent Controller, who inspected the site in question never recorded his inspection note and in the absence of same, no finding could be given that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In support of these contentions, he referred to Waryam Singh v. Sham Dass, I. L. R. 1984 (2) P&H. 398 and Raghbir Singh v. Lata Dina Nath Advocate, 1961 (1) R C. R 57.