BAL KISHAN Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1163 and 1181 of 1993.

(2.) BOTH the revision petitions are by the tenants, directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby they have been ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the landlord requires the same for his personal necessity. Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1163 of 1993 is occupying the premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month, while petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1181 of 1993 is occupying the premises at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. Ejectment of the tenants was sought on the grounds, namely :-

(3.) AGAINST this, respondent examined Sh. B.S.S. Bhalla, RW 2, Sub Divisional Engineer (Retd.). He in his report, Exh. RW-2/A opined that the building requires only yearly repairs and not re-construction. In his report, he stated that the building has been totally ignored for periodical yearly repairs and the lime plaster is in the process of falling from ceiling. He found that the building is of Class-II category and was constructed some time in the year 1935. Appellate Authority on perusal of the photographs of the building proved on record, found that the report of AW 5 Er. Y.D. Adlakha is more reliable and believing that report, has held that the building has outlived its utility and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The contention of counsel for the petitioners that the report of the building Expert (AW 5) does not spell out any reason as to why the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, is without any merit. AW 5 Building Expert, in his report has given detailed account of the condition of the building. On perusal of photographs proved on record, I am also of the view that appellate Authority is perfectly justified in saying that one wall near the door is totally damaged and is in crumbling stage. Photographs, Exhs. AW-6/4, AW-6/5 and AW-6/6, show the dilapidated condition of the building. Report, Exh. RW- 2/1 submitted by Er. B.S.S. Bhalla examined by the tenants is vague. In his report, he has laid stress on the thickness of the walls without mentioning that the plaster has completely fallen down and the stones used in the construction of the building are bulging out as is clear from the photographs produced on the record. Inspection-note submitted by the Rent Controller is also of no help to the tenants as the Rent Controller himself did not place any reliance on his inspection note. Moreover, a reading of the inspection- note of the Rent Controller shows that he in his note has not pointed out any infirmity in the report of AW 5 Expert, Er. Y.D. Adlakha. Counsel for the petitioners cited some judgments of this Court to contend that merely because the building suffered a few cracks or is more than 60 years old, would not mean that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. There is no dispute with this proposition. In order to determine the dilapidated nature, whole of the construction has to be taken into consideration. Considering that the material used in the construction of the building was slate stone, Nanak Shahi Bricks (small bricks) and lime mortar, the building is nearly 100 years old and not 60 as has been found by the Building Expert examined by the tenants. It was after considering the condition of the building in its entirety, the learned appellate Authority had come to the conclusion that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The finding being based on appreciation of evidence calls for no interference.