MATHRA DASS Vs. PRITHVI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whereas the respondent-landlord was unsuccessful before the Rent Controller in his endeavor to seek eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, fortune favoured him before the Appellate Authority. It is this order of reversal rendered by the Appellate Authority that has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) Respondent-landlord sought eviction of petitioner-tenant on the surviving ground of building being unsafe and unfit for human inhabitation. This finding turned against the landlord and in favour of the tenant before the Rent Controller but was reversed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and examining records of the case with his assistance, this Court is of the view that the Appellate Authority was justified in reversing the order rendered by the Rent Controller. Concededly, the premises in dispute was more than 40 years old and the first floor had fallen down. The landlord pleaded in his petition that the shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation because the building was more than 50 years old and about 11 months age back portion of the upper storey of the disputed shop had fallen due to rains and natural causes. In the corresponding para of the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner, this assertion has merely been denied but otherwise, not a word was stated that the building was not old or that the upper portion had been demolished by the landlord himself as was his case when he appeared as his own witness in the Court. Besides, the pleadings that have been referred to above, it was conclusively proved that in so far as upper portion is concerned, the same had fallen down. No doubt, the tenant by his own evidence and also that of another tenant in the vicinity had tried to establish that the landlord himself had pulled down the upper portion of the house, this court is not inclined to believe the stand taken by the tenant as it is against the normal human conduct. No owner would like to damage his own building. That part, the son-in-law of the tenant candidly admitted that the portion of the premises occupied by the tenant was of katcha walls and the earth from the walls had fallen down. This part of the case was corroborated not only by the petitioner but also by a mason who was examined by him.