KRISHAN LAL Vs. BANSI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Krishan Lal and others, hereinafter described as "the petitioners", directed against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jadadhri, dated 24.7.1996 and that of the learned Appellate Authority, Jagadhri, dated 27.5.1998. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the shop in dispute had been let to the petitioners. The respondent claimed their eviction on the ground that the agreed rent was Rs. 200/- per month besides house tax charges. The arrears were claimed to be due from 1.3.1986 to 28.2.1989 besides house tax at the rate of 12.5% per annum with interest and costs. It was further asserted that the property in dispute was let for the business of cloth merchant but the tenants have started running tea stall in the said premises and had installed a Bhatti. In this process, it was stated that user of the premises had been changed. It was further asserted that by installing Bhatti the petitioners have made roof and the walls of the property in question very weak. The smoke damaged the roof and walls besides being a nuisance. In that process, the ground of eviction pressed was that the petitioner have materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises. The last ground urged on behalf of the respondent was that the shop in question is more than 100 years old. It is made of small bricks. It has a kacha roof. The upper storey of the building has already fallen. The roof is in a dilapidated condition. The wooden karies have sagged and some of the bricks of the roof had fallen. There are cracks in the wall. It has become dangerous and dilapidated and thus the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller framed the issues and recorded the evidence. It was held that the rent as claimed by the respondent was not due. But, according to the Rent Controller, the petitioners were liable to be evicted because they had changed user of the premises and that the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.