KANWAR SAIN Vs. MATU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by the two authorities below.

(2.) THE landlords sought the ejectment of the tenant from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that the same had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was pleaded that the western wall of the premises alongwith the staircase had fallen down inside therein. Reconstruction of the whole staircase was so extensive and fundamental in character that it could not be carried out if the tenant remained in possession thereof and that the northern wall had also cracks and called for repairs. The stand taken in the written statement was that the said allegations were incorrect. The shop was in good condition and the western wall was intentionally got demolished by the landlords at night time. The wall could be repaired and the landlords instead of repairing the same, had filed the ejectment application for evicting him. The landlords could not take advantage of their own wrong. The tenant reported the matter to the Police, but the Police appears to have connived with the landlords and was not taking any action against them. Another plea was also raised that the application was barred by the principles of res judicata. The landlords filed three ejectment applications earlier on the same grounds, which were rejected and the instant one was the fourth eviction application filed by them on the same grounds. The third ejectment application was dismissed on April 10, 1974; whereas the fourth ejectment application was filed on March 22, 1975. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlords had failed to prove that the shop, in dispute, was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that they required it for re-construction. It was further found that it was quite evident that the ejectment application was vicious and mala fide and had been filed simply to harass the tenant. Accordingly, the same was dismissed vide order dated March 29, 1976. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. Before the Appellate Authority, Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect the site and to submit a detailed report about the damage caused to the shop due to the wall having collapsed. He was directed to prepare a plan of the disputed shop indicating the portion of the western wall which had actually fallen down. He was further directed to make a report about the general condition of the shop as well. The Local Commissioner made his report dated April 12, 1977. He found whole of the western wall of the shop having fallen down. The said wall did not exist at all except that a few bricks were found lying there. He further found that the other three walls of the shop were in good condition and there was no damage to the condition of the roof and the floor which were normal. The general condition of the shop was stated to be normal except that the western wall had totally fallen down. After considering the said report and the evidence on the record, the learned Appellate Authority found that the condition of the building as it existed did not require demolition and re-construction. Three walls as well as roof are intact and in good condition. Only one of the side walls which had either fallen or removed needed to be replaced for which eviction of the tenant from the premises, in dispute, was not called for. It was further found -

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.