JAMIL AHMAD Vs. DEWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Jamil Ahmad has a grievance against the judgment of the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act (District Judge), Nahan, in appeal No. 12N/ 14 of 1982, decided on 28/04/1983, thereby affirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, District Sirmur, at Nahan, in Rent Suit No. 2/2 of 1979, decided on 1/07/1982.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') is occupying the shop on the ground floor of the building bearing Municipal No. 1759/ 9, situate in Ward No. 9, Mohalla Ganughat, Nahan. It is a double storeyed building and the respondent (hereinafter called as 'the landlord') purchased it through a registered sale deed dated 5/10/1978 and is occupying the first floor thereof.

(3.) A petition, seeking eviction of the petitioner was moved on the grounds inter alia that he was in arrears of rent; that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; the same is bona fide required for reconstruction being in dilapidated condition and substantial additions and alterations were not possible without the building being vacated. It has also been averred that initially the petitioner was carrying on the business of Barbar followed by Karyana business and finally became a contractor in the Public Works Department. The shop remained closed for four years and it became dilapidated and now the same has been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation, on the other hand, the petitioner denies these allegations and asserts that he continued his initial business with the help of his son and servant although he became a P.W.D. contractor. As to the condition of the building, it is contended that the shop is neither dilapidated nor unsafe and unfit for human is neither dilapidated nor unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to him, the premises became unsafe and unfit for human habitation due to the action of the landlord himself. The damage to the roof of the shop, cracks in the walls and the floor and the openings were all due to the action of the landlord and finally it is stated that the upper portion of the premises could be rebuilt without the shop being vacated.