JAI KARAN Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Karan petitioner is the landlord while respondent Madan Lal is the tenant of the demised premises which consisted of two rooms, one kitchen, one latrine, one glazed and one open verandah as per plan attached with the main petition for eviction, and these premises have been described as Upper Flat of House No 1 (5 C, Krishna Nagar, Shimla

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and in view of the aforesaid provision of the Act, the Landlord has to establish the following circumstances before the petition for eviction is favourably considered : (i) that the building of which demised premises were a part had outlived its life and were required bonafide for substantial additions and alterations; (ii) that the repairs and substantial additions and alterations cannot be effected without the tenant having vacated the demised premises. In order to establish his case the landlord examined oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to prove the plea that building has outlived its life and requires substantial additions aid alterations, parties examined expert witnesses. On behalf of the landlord Sh S P. Kapoor a retired Engineer was examined as PW 1 who deposed on oath that he had forty years experience in building construction and at the instance of the landlord he inspected the building under reference as the landlord had informed that he wanted to carry out repairs and substantial additions and alterations. Witness has brought on record report (Ex. P -l) In this report, witness has dealt with various aspects of the building and he came to the conclusion that building was not fit for human habitation in its present condition and needed substantial repairs and alterations, as per sanctioned plan. He also opined in the report that it was not possible to do this work without getting the building vacated. Ha further mentioned in the report that the ground floor of the building was with the owner and it was lying vacant due to poor condition of the building. This witness also stated before the Rent Controller that Plan "Mark X9 had been shown to him and on the basis of this, repairs, additions and alterations could not be carried out without the premises being vacated,

(4.) On the other hand, tenant examined Sh. R, B, Saksena (RW 4), again a retired Engineer, who inspected the building under reference in March 1992. He stated that except one set in the ground floor, other sets were occupied and condition of the building was good. Report given by this witness was Ex. PW 4/A on record and plan was Ex. PW 4/B. Witness has given the age of the building to be about 60 to 70 years. He has been very specific in deposing that building requires minor repairs which could be carried out without vacating the premises.