ROSHAN LAL Vs. HARI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Roshan Lal, hereinafter described as " the petitioner" directed against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jagraon, dated 23.12.1991 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 28.1.1997. The order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

(2.) The relevant facts are that the respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner with respect to the property in question. It has been asserted that the petitioner is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- per month. It had been agreed that the rent would be paid in advance. Rent note was executed on 11.12.1985. The grounds of eviction pressed at the time when the petition for eviction was filed were that arrears of rent have not been paid and due from 9.7.1988 and that the suit property has outlived its life. The roof of the second room of the rented premises had fallen. The other portion of the tenanted premises is-also in dilapidated condition. Walls have developed dangerous cracks. The floor has depressed. The wooden joinery has become white ant eaten and the roof of the second room is also on verge of collapse. It requires reconstruction after demolition. It was further pleaded that the petitioner has used the premises in a reckless manner and the value and utility of the suit premises has been impaired.

(3.) The petitioner contested the petition for eviction. There was no dispute raised pertaining to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was asserted that it was the respondent who is not accepting the rent in order to create a ground for eviction. The ground floor of the property comprises of three rooms. In the first room the main business is being carried. There is a 'Chobara' on the front room which is in possession of one tenant Des Raj. It was denied that the suit property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The roof of the second room has been damaged. As per petitioner, it is the respondent-landlord who had damaged it to create a ground for eviction. It was denied that there was a defect in the floor, wooden joinery and assertion was made that part of the roof can be replaced without the tenant being evicted.