PAWAN KUMAR Vs. GULZARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby he has been ordered to be evicted on the ground that the premises in his occupation have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) LANDLORD (respondent herein) filed an eviction application against the petitioner on two grounds, namely the petitioner is in arrears of rent with effect from 8. 2. 1983 and, secondly, the building of which the premises form part of, has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Upon notice of the eviction application, tenant filed written statement and pleaded that his father was a tenant in the demised premises on a rent of Rs. 35.00 per month and after the death of his father, he is paying rent to the original owner. On the first date of hearing, arrears of rent along with interest and cost assessed by the Rent Controller were tendered. The ground of non-payment of rent; therefore, no longer survives. Petitioner further denied that the premises in his occupation have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application. Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur. Hence, the present civil revision.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, I am of the view that the petition is without any merit. It is true that mere fact that the building is nearly 100 years in no ground to come to the conclusion that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation but at the same time, landlord is not supposed to prove that the building is likely to fall down at any time. The fact that the building is not unsafe and unfit for human habitation has to be seen in regard to each case independently. In the present case, landlord alleged that the building is built of Nanak Shahi bricks i. e. it is about 100 years old. The building has developed cracks, masonary work has fallen and the building is likely to collapse at any time and may result in loss of life. In support of the allegation, landlord examined J. C. Mahajan, retired X. E. N. who in his report, Exhibit, A-6 opined that the building has been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. He, in his report, gave a detailed description of the condition of the building. Petitioner also examined his expert, Sh. Mohinder Singh, Mechanical Engineer, who reported that the demised premises require major repairs because of cracks appearing in its wall. However, he stated that there is no imminent danger of its collapse. Mohinder Singh had conceded that there are vertical cracks in all the walls and in the roof of the building which is likely to fall. It had further been conceded by the expert examined by the petitioner that the vertical cracks appearing in the wall and the roof can only be repaired by replacing the portions thereof and immediate replacement of roof is necessary. For determining the dilapidated nature of the building, the Appellate Authority, after taking into account the report of the experts as also their statements made in Court, has come to the definite conclusion that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. I find no infirmity in the finding so recorded by the Appellate Authority. I may also observe that during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the landlord that during the pendency of the civil revision, the first floor of the building and the other part of the building have totally collapsed. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to rebut this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent.