KISHORI LAL Vs. GURDAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision application by a landlord who made an application for eviction of the respondent from the demised shop on a number of grounds, but only on ground survives at the stage that on the date of the eviction application the condition of the demised shop was such that it was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The applicant succeeded before the Rent Controller but failed before the Appellate Authority on all the grounds on which he sought eviction of the respondent including of course the ground that survives here.

(2.) Evidence was led by the parties before the Rent Controller which obviously was at variance but it showed one thing clearly that the demised shop is an old building. The evidence of the applicant was that it was in such a dilapidated state, that it needed reconstruction, otherwise it was dangerous and unsafe for human habitation, whereas the respondent led evidence to the contrary. An application was made on the side of the respondent to the Rent Controller for inspection of the shop to see its condition and whether there was any truth in the averment of the applicant that the shop was unsafe and unfit for human habitation, but the Rent Controller does not seem to have attended to that application. He accepted the applicant's evidence and found that the demised shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On appeal there was an application to the Appellate Authority for inspection of the property. It was inspected by the appellate authority and it was found that although it was in need of repairs, but it was not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The roof had been replaced. It is not clearly stated by the Appellate Authority that it had been replaced during the pendency of the eviction application by the applicant, though the learned counsel for the applicant says that the Rent Controller has found so clearly. He further points out that the argument on the side of the respondent was that the demised shop needed repairs which he had carried out and that this ground of eviction did not subsist. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground under consideration because he had inspected the shop and found that it was not unfit and unsafe for human habitation, though it was in need of repairs. The appellate authority further came to the conclusion following Chandu Lal v. Har Lal (Civil Revision No. 801 of 1965 decided on January 4, 1966, by a learned single Judge of this Court) that replacement of the roof would be a part of necessary repairs and not necessarily a part of the expression structural alterations. The applicant failed in his application before the appellate authority. This is a revision application by him.

(3.) As has been said above, the only ground that has been urged on behalf of the applicant is that the demised shop is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. This shop was purchased by the applicant on January 13, 1964. It is the statement of the applicant before the Rent Controller that at that time the shop was all right, in other words it was not in a dilapidated condition and consequently could not be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. A little less than two months after on March 2, 1964, the eviction application was made by the applicant and this ground was taken in it. The Appellate Authority very rightly remarks that within about 7 to 8 weeks the condition of the demised shop could not become so dilapidated that it became unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Appellate Authority considered the evidence and came to the conclusion that the applicant had Failed to prove that the demised shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. This is a finding of fact in which there can be no room for interference in revision. It is, however, based on the observation of the Appellate Authority and no substantial criticism is available to the applicant against the observations of the Appellate Authority found that a roof had been changed. There has been some controversy between the parties as to the exact time of the change of the roof. The applicant obviously said that it had been changed during the pendency of the eviction application and the learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that it was argued before the Rent Controller on the side of the respondent that the roof had been changed during the pendency of that application. At the same time, it appears from the statement of the respondent himself that he had changed the roof a few months before the date of the eviction application, which date actually comes very near to the date of the purchase of the shop by the applicant. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on a report of a railway officer, & who has also appeared as a witness on behalf of the applicant, that the western wall of the demised shop had been in a dilapidated condition and the applicant was required to rebuild it, but it was very rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that this report was made after some six months of the date of the eviction application. The fact remains that the applicant has himself admitted that on January 13, 1964, the date on which he purchased the shop, there was nothing wrong with it, in other words it was fit for human occupation and habitation. So it could not possibly have become dilapidated within about 7 or 8 weeks of that date for the applicant to take this ground of eviction against the respondent. Apparently, the Appellate Authority is right in reaching the conclusion that this is a ground which has not been proved by the applicant. It is true that the applicant has had a plan for reconstruction of the shop sanctioned by the local municipality, but merely because he has had a plan of reconstruction sanctioned by the municipality that does not mean that the demised shop has been unfit and unsafe for human habitation.