KRISHAN PAL MOHINDROO Vs. RAM GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 1499 of 1988, as the facts as common in both the cases.

(2.) THE landlord Krishan Pal Mohindroo filed the ejectment application on September 27, 1983, against his tenant Ram Gopal, seeking his ejectment from the premises consisting of a house, house-tax No. 509/68-69-70 situated in Ahata Beni Parshad, Simla Road, Kalka. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was pleaded that the building in occupation of the tenant had become open to sky. Even the roof as well as the walls had left their places as the building was more than 100 years old and had outlived its life and was in a dilapidated condition. In the written statement filed on behalf of tenant it was pleaded that it was the landlord and his family members who had removed cement-plaster from the walls and the roof for which he had filed an application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, (hereinafter called the Act) for allowing him to effect the necessary repairs which had been moved before the filing of the petition under Section 13 of the Act, by the landlord. He denied that the building was 100 years old; rather, according to him it was only 40/50 years old and the same was quite fit and safe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller negatived this plea of the landlord and consequently, dismissed the ejectment application vide order dated April 20, 1987. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order rejecting the application. In this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 1499 of 1988, Civil Miscellaneous Application, under Order 20VI Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure, was moved for the appointment of a local commissioner. Vide order dated March 1, 1989, Shri Rajinder Krishan Aggarwal, Advocate was appointed as a local commissioner. He was directed to make the report about the condition of the building, in dispute, as to whether it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not. He has filed his report dated March 9, 1989. The site was inspected by the local commissioner in the presence of the counsel for the parties. Shri Yad Ram son of the tenant Ram Gopal was also present there. According to the said report, room Nos. 1 and 2 are in good condition though in the inner corner at point 'A', two battons are broken at the end. Two iron rods, about two feet long each, are fixed in the wall to give support to those battons. As regards room No. 4, the finding was that some upper portion of the right side wall was bulging out, but was still intact. Mud-plaster on the right side wall was loose at some places and had developed some cracks. Regarding room No. 3, it has been reported that this room had also brick flooring add mud-plastered walls. The right side wall and the front wall of the room was water affected from inside and the mud-plaster sounds hollow when tapped with finger tips. Room No. 5 is stated to be only a temporary type of structure, which is smaller than other rooms with tin-sheet roof at a height of about six feet. The same was being used as a kitchen at present. Room Nos. 6 and 7 have been found to have fallen. Most of the wooden battons have been eaten away by white ants and are broken from in between. Broken wooden bottons and some iron rods are hanging downwards. The first floor of the house, in dispute, is occupied by the landlord himself. It is reported that the floor above room Nos. 1 and 2 is cemented and is in a good condition. There is one room constructed above room No. 1 and the same is being used as a store at present by the landlord. The floor above room No. 3 is also cemented, but is broken and damaged at a number of places. Ultimately, it has been reported :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the report and the objections filed thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Supreme Court judgment in Piara Lal's case (supra), has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the roof of one of the rooms had fallen and there was no evidence that the remaining building was in damaged condition. In the present case, it has been reported by the local commissioner that the building has outlived its utility. Though the roof of two rooms had already fallen, the condition of the others room also not good and ultimately, it has been found that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. There is nothing to suggest that the said report was vitiated in any matter as alleged in the objection petition.