RAUNAQ RAM Vs. GOPAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant, who has been evicted on the twin consideration of subletting and dilapidated condition of the building before both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner before this Court.

(2.) THE counsel for the revision petitioner addressed the argument that the landlord had not examined himself but he had examined only his power of attorney, who was not competent to give such evidence and consequently there was no material on the basis of which eviction could have been awarded. When it was pointed out to him that such a wide proposition could not be countenanced for the petitioner, that landlord was the master of his own case and it was open to him to place such evidence as he deemed proper and the evidence of power of attorney cannot be rejected any more than an inference that was possible, that if he had been examined he would have been forced to admit some material facts, the landlord himself must have been examined and he was evading the witness box for an oblique purpose, that the landlord. The counsel did not persist on that argument and was prepared to address his contention on the evidence available on the issues of subletting and the alleged inhabitable nature of the building.

(3.) EVEN apart from the ground of sub-letting that the landlord had to tread, he is placed on a firm footing on the other ground namely, of the building, being in a state of dilapidation and being unfit for human habitation. It is admitted in the evidence of the tenant himself that the wooden rafters that support the ceiling have fallen and the ceiling is now supported by erecting two pillars at different places. It is also in evidence that there is seepage of water along the wall and the building is dilapidated. The counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on a report that it was still fit for habitation. The lower Appellate Court has considered the rival contentions in its proper perspective and has made a reference to the decision of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a landlord in order to secure eviction on this ground need not prove that the building is in a ruinous condition. The finding of the trial Court and the Appellate Court is, therefore, well reasoned on the said ground also and I am not persuaded to take a different finding from how the Courts below have approached the issue. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.