PARSHOTAM LAL Vs. KHADI ASHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) The ejectment application was filed on October 11, 1983, by landlord, the Khadi Ashram, against the tenant Parshotam Lal claiming his ejectment from the shop, in dispute which was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. It was let out on June, 1, 1980, whereas the land lord had purchased it on May 21, 1980. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition and deserved to be demolished and reconstructed. The construction was bout 70/80 years and was in a bad shape. The entire building had been reconstructed in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur, with the exception of the portion which is in dispute in this case. The shop being unfit therefrom. The stand taken by the tenant was that the condition of the shop was quite good. The application for ejectment was mala fide as the landlord wanted to earn pugree after getting it vacated from the tenant. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the entire evidence including the expert evidence of A.W. 3 Parmodh Chander Bhardwaj, came to the conclusion that the building in question, had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the learned Rent Controller, it was proved on the record that landlord had already got approved the building plan from the Municipal Corporation, Jullundur for re-construction of the building in dispute. In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed on January 18, 1985. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. According to the Appellate Authority, it was proved beyond doubt that the condition of the building was such that it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been wrongly held by the authorities below that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the learned counsel, an application for the appointment of a local commissioner was made before the Rent Controller, but the same was declined arbitrarily. Morever, argued the learned counsel, the shop, in dispute, was purchased on May 21, 1980 and was let out, on June 1, 1980. That being so the shop was let out, according to the learned counsel, in a good condition and it could not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation when the ejectment application was filed on October, 11, 1983. According to the learned counsel, the requirement of the law is that the building has become "unsafe and unfit for human habitation", which according to the learned counsel, means that it must become unfit after the same was let out.