- (1.) The landlord petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellant Authority, Gurgaon dated 4th of May, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing his ejectment application, was maintained.
(2.) The landlord Tara Chand filed the application for ejectment of his tenant from the double storeyed shops together with Chabutra in front thereof situated in Killa Bazar Hansi, which was on yearly rent of Rs. 400/- excluding house-tax and water-tax etc. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the building in dispute had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It was an old one and the landlord intended to construct it afresh after demolishing the same. It was further alleged that the shop is about to collapse. This claim was contested by the tenant respondent in his written statement and on the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues. 1. Is the respondent liable to be ejectment on the grounds mentioned in the application 2. Is the tender valid 3. Is the respondent entitled to get back the tendered amount and so of, to what extent 4. Has the respondent got the shop in dispute repaired with the consent of the first party and to what amount is he entitled on that account and its effect 5. Has any compromise been effected between the parties on 19.1.1970 and if so, to what effect 6. Is the notice not valid 7. Is the respondent entitled to get compensatory cost 8. Relief. All issue except issue No. 1 were decided against the tenant. On issue No. 1, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the condition of the shop in dispute has been found good though is very old but it would not be proper to say that the condition of the shop is so worse that it can fall any time. On this finding, the ejectment-application was dismissed. On appeal, this finding of the Rent Controller has been maintained by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against this, the landlord, has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) Shri Gian Chand Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that in view of an earlier report, Exhibit A. 1, dated 29th March, 1973 and the inspection note dated 24th of July, 1975, it is quite evident that the building is a very old one and is in a 'Khasta' condition. Even the walls have bended and there are cracks therein. Bricks are coming out and the building is in a very dilapidated condition and may collapse at any time. According to the learned counsel, there being no rebuttal to this evidence, particularly to the statement of the expert A.W. 7 produced by the landlord, it has been wrongly held that the building has not become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. He further contended that even Sukh Ram RW5 admitted that the building is a very old one and is likely to collapse on the one set of any rains. He further contended that it is not necessary that the building must collapse before an application for ejectment on the ground of its being unsafe or unfit for human habitation is maintained. In support of his contention, he referred to Sat Pal v. Charan Dass,1968 PunLR 459; Dr. Piara Lal Kapur v. Smt. Kaushalya Devi and another,1970 PunLR 411, Karam Chand v. Roshan Lal, 1975 RCR(Rent) 531; Smt. Bhagwanti widow of Tikka Ram and others v. Yasodha Devi,1980 1 RCR(Civ) 574; and Rattan Lal and another v. Sohan Lal and another, 1979 1 RCR(Rent) 198.;