SHYAM LAL Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants, in the demised premises, becoming aggrieved, from the concurrently recorded verdicts, against him, by both the learned. Courts below, where through, they became ordered hence to evict the demises premises,and, for casting an onslaught thereon, rather thereagainst, rerar the, instant civil revision petition, before this Court.

(2.) Both the learned Courts below, had, on the available evidence(s), before each, and, appertaining, to the issue, relating to the building, wherein, the demised premises, are located, becoming unsafe and unfit, for human habitation,

(3.) The aggrieved tenants would become facilated, to, make a valid challenge, upon the concurrent verdicts, pronounced against him, by both the learned Courts below, (i) upon his making allusion, to the relevant evidence, as existing on record, and its making display, vis--?-vis, the afore, grounds, becoming stained, with, the vice of malafides, or, also theirs becoming spuriously raised grounds. The afore evidence, would be comprised in, hence documentary evidence, unveiling, vis--?- vis, the building, wherein, the, demised premises, are, housed, becoming, in, contemporaneity, vis--?- vis, the institution, of, the extant rent petition, rather leased on, rent by her, hence, on, a quantum, of, rent higher, vis--?-vis, the oneas, attorned, extantly, by the hereat tenant, (ii) or, the endeavour, of the land lord, to, strive, for re-construction, of, the building, wherein, the demised premises, are, located, rather becoming, a, vitiated espousal, hence, earmarked, by the factum, qua his not, holding sufficient funds, for re-building, the, demised premises, after demolishing the building, wherein, it is housed, (b) and his not holding the relevant sanction plan, from the authorities concerned. A perusal of the Ext. P-5, makes clear under-lining, vis- -?-vis, the demised premises, becoming collapsed, and, the afore factum has also become admitted by RW-4. The effect of the afore, is, vis--?-vis, the land lord, rather proving, vis--?-vis, the portion of the building, wherein, the demised premises, exists, rather facing imminent collapse, and hence unless the tenants, are ordered, to be, evicted, for, the, tenanted premises, (c) neither the apt renovation(s), or re-construction, thereof, becoming possible. In sequel, the findings, returned on the ground, appertaining to the tenanted premises becoming, unsafe and unfit, for, human habitation, are, not amenable, for, interference, being made, by this Court.