MANOHRI DEVI Vs. HARI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 15(5) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 against order dated February 21, 1977 of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) The ejectment of the tenant was sought on two grounds, namely, the non-payment of rent and the building having become unfit for human habitation. The specific averment in this respect was that the house let out consisted of a room and the verandah. The room had since fallen down and the verandah was in a dilapidated condition. The defence set up was that only room had been let out and the same was fit for human habitation. The Rent Controller, after recording evidence of the partied, found that the room had since fallen down and the verandah had been converted into a room which was not fit for human habitation. On appeal, the learned Appellate Authority inspected the spot and found that the room had since fallen down and the verandah which had been converted into an improvised room was also unfit for human habitation.

(3.) The concurrent finding of the two authorities below has been challenged on the ground that the Appellate Authority has solely relied on his inspection note and has not referred to the evidence on record. I am of the view that under the provisions of the Rent Act, the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority can rely on its inspection note but it is not necessary for me to record a considered opinion on this matter. In the present case, I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter on the evidence produced. The learned counsel then referred to the statements of three witnesses produced by the petitioner. A detailed reference to their statements need not be made because R.W. 1 who is an Overseer and prepared map, Exhibit R-1, stated that the premises in dispute consists of one room and the verandah. His statement, therefore, proves beyond doubt that the room is no more in existence and it is only the verandah in which the petitioner is living. The room having already fallen down, it cannot be said that the premises in dispute are fit for human habitation.