PURAN CHAND AND ANR Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bone of contention between the parties is a shop situated in Nabha town from which the tenant petitioner has been directed by the Controller as well as the Appellate Authority to be ejected on the ground that the premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The orders of the Tribunals below are sought to be revised in these proceedings with the contention raised on behalf of the tenant-petitioner that the ground above mentioned is non-existent.

(2.) In coming to the conclusion that the premises in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, reliance has been placed on the testimony of Municipal Overseer Amar Nath Singla (A.W. 1), Draftsman Surrinder Kumar (A.W.2) and Contractor Vidya Rattan (A.W. 3), apart from the deposition of the landlord-respondent himself. All these witnesses took the stand that building in dispute was 70 or 80 years old. Amar Nath (A.W. 1) added that it was in dangerous condition and was not fit for human habitation. When cross-examined he admitted that no part of the building had actually fallen down. Practically to the same effect is what the other witnesses for the landlord stated in the witness box. Surrinder Kumar (A.W. 2) and Vidya Rattan (A.W. 3) further asserted that the building had developed cracks. According to Surrinder Kumar (A.W. 2), those cracks could rot be repaired. When the petition first came up before me which was on the 25th of April, 1975, arguments were addressed to me in part and it was vehemently contended on behalf of the tenant-petitioner that the testimony of the witnesses for the landlord was wholly insufficient to form the basis of a finding that the building had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. On that date ultimately counsel for the parties agreed that in order to correctly appreciate the evidence a Local Commissioner should be appointed with a direction that he should make a spot inspection and then report about the factual position of the building vis-a-vis the point in issue. Mr. U.S. Sahni, Advocate, Chandigarh was, therefore, so appointed and after visiting the spot, has submitted his detailed report dated the 5th May, 1975 which contains the following observations :-

(3.) No exception has been taken to Mr. Sahni's report from either side and I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting it at its face value. I may add that the testimony of the witnesses for the landlord also does not really and in substance run counter to what the report says. According to that testimony, a few cracks had appeared in the walls and that was in fact all that the witnesses for the landlord could say as to what was the factually wrong with the building. The rest of their testimony which is to the effect that the building was in "dilapidated condition" and had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation consists really of conclusions subjectively arrived at by them and that without justification. Just because the building has suffered a few cracks, it does not necessarily follow that it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. As pointed out by Mr. Sahni, there is no present danger of the building "breaking up" and I hold that the landlord has failed to prove the existence of the ground which forms the basis of the eviction of the tenant-petitioner as ordered by the Tribunals below.