MAHESH KUMAR Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord who sought for eviction of three tenants by independent petitions, who held various portions of the same building suffered a reversal of the decision before the Appellate Authority when the landlord's application for ejectment was disallowed. The landlord in all the three petitions is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE grounds for eviction as sought for were that building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; that the tenants had been guilty of acts that had impaired the use and utility of the building and that in respect of the subject matter of revision in C.R. No. 2225 of 1989 alone, it had been contended that the tenant had converted the tin-shed which was a part of the demised premises as verandah and had rendered himself actionable for ejectment for wrongful conversion.

(3.) APART from the examination of the landlord himself to prove the relatively dilapidated structure and the condition of building, the landlord had also filed an application for appointment of Commissioner, who had personally inspected the property and had given a report with site plan. Yet another expert Desh Raj had also carried out inspection of the premises and had given a report. Sh. Jagdish Rai Bagla, Advocate has given his report, which states inter alia :- "That there were doors which closed the verandah of tin shed but the doors were opened at the time of inspection. There was no planks (SIC) at the door 'L' shown in the site plan. In the room I found there four pillars DEFG and girders were put on D to E and G to F in room No. 1 and in room No. 2 there was a wooden lot (Shateer) fitted in the wall at point AB in room No. 2 to give support to the roof. That I found the wooden planks almirahs were put to stand on the wall as shown XY which has covered some of the gate 'L'. I also found a crack from level to top about 1/2" in breadth in the front of room No. 1 in wall XY. Site plan attached."