PYARE LAL Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is directed against the eviction ordered against the tenant in an action taken by the landlord under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on three grounds but the ground that survived for consideration was in favour of the landlord which was the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The eviction was made on a consideration of the reports of a Commissioner who had inspected the property and found that some repair work had been done and by his inspection, it was clear that the plastering on walls had been undertaken just a few days before his visit and that the building was not safe and it was unfit for human habitation. Apart from this evidence, there was evidence of an expert who was examined as PW-5 who had given his evidence with reference to a report which was exhibited as PW-4/A and the plan PW-4/B that the tenanted portion of the property was falling and the remaining portion of the property had completely fallen and had become vacant. The expert had also opined that some repairs had been undertaken by the tenant which according to him on his enquiry to the tenant was done by him to prevent the roof from falling down completely.

(2.) THE orders of eviction passed by the authorities below are assailed by the learned counsel for the tenant on the ground that the first report which was given after an inspection by a Local Commissioner had not stated anywhere about the condition of building except that on inspection of the inner rooms, he found that "some of the karries of the roof were bending" and otherwise he did not notice anything more in those rooms. He had generally observed that there was no outlet on the roofs for rainwater to drain and that feature itself could endanger the life of both the roofs in the near future. Learned counsel's objection to the report of the second Commissioner was that the Commissioner had inspected the premises in yet another civil suit but the Commissioner himself had admitted that he was not an expert himself and he had no knowledge about the nature of repairs that had been done. According to the learned counsel, the report was not helpful since no more than plastering of the walls noted to have been done was made and there was no clear evidence as to the fact that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Adverting to the evidence of PW-5, learned counsel submitted that an expert was not competent to elicit any evidence from the parties and the report which makes a reference to the so-called admission by the tenant that he had carried out repairs to prevent the roof from falling was inadmissible. According to him, there should be an independent proof that the building was unfit.

(3.) LEARNED counsel refers my attention to two decisions of this Court, one in M/s Mahavir Jain Shoe Store, Khanna v. Dr. Gian Chand Loomba and another, 1999(2) RCR(Rent) 294 : 2000(1) PLR 35, where the Court held in a case arising under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act that, when the issue is whether a building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the Court has to see whether the demised premises or the building of which the demised premises is a part, has become unsafe or unit for human habitation on the date of the filing of the petition itself and not when the order of ejectment was made. The other decision is Mohinder Pal v. Hari Das, reported in 2000(2) RCR(Rent) 103 : 2000(3) PLR 563, which also dealt with a case under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act that if the other part of the building had fallen down, that by itself will not mean that the premises in question are also unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is not possible for me to accept the decisions as laying down any law differently from how the Courts below have dealt with the issues.