- (1.) The petition is at the instance of the landlord assailing the order of dismissal of the petition for eviction sought under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The petition was founded essentially on the grounds of non-payment of rent, material impairment in value and utility of the building and the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The property had been let out for a non-residential purpose for use as a godown. The petitioner stated that the respondent had started to store Khad (fertilizers) that resulted in serious damage to the flooring and walls of the building. The fertilizers emitted smoke that had caused immeasurable damage resulting in the building becoming unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondent contested the petition and paid the arrears of rent at the first hearing so that the ground of eviction was no longer available. As regards the plea that the tenant had changed the user by storing fertilizers, it was contended that only articles and goods as 'railway out agencies goods' (sic) were being stored and neither khad or nor disposal scrap was being stored in the premises. The further contention was that the damages that were found to exist such as sagging of flooring or cracks in the walls were repairable without causing any structural alterations and such disrepairs ought not to be assumed as constituting damage to the integrity of the building or give rise to a scope for a perception that the building was unfit and unsafe. The respondent itself had not done any act to materially impair the construction and such of those damages which were found were due to ordinary wear and tear that were capable of being repaired and which the landlord was bound to repair.
(2.) Before the Rent Controller, evidence was led by both parties through building expert, the landlord's expert saying that the building had cracks on the walls and sagging of the floor that made it unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenant's expert gave contra evidence that was to the effect that there was no serious damage to the integrity of the building to make it unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Appellate Authority reversed the decision on a reappraisal of the quality of evidence brought through the building experts. It is the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Authority which is in challenge before this Court.
(3.) Since the change of user of the property by use of fertilizers was not itself brought out effectively in evidence, I would affirm the finding rendered that there had been no particular change that had caused the material impairment to the building by alleged storing of fertilizers. It must be remembered that the property was let out as godown and the resultant damage to the flooring ought not to be itself a cause for a complaint of material impairment. It is the purpose of letting that would determine whether a material impairment has been caused or not. For instance, if a property is let out for running a retail shop and the tenant uses it as a godown storing heavy goods that causes damage to the flooring, the change of user that causes a material impairment could itself be a justification for eviction. On the other hand, if a property is let for storage of goods as a godown, the fact that the property of such storage results in some damage cannot be a ground for eviction. The law admits a material impairment that is the result of the tenant's activities alone as constituting a ground for eviction. A natural decay of a building is a distinct ground which has to be established by proof of the building being unfit and unsafe. In this case, I do not find that the tenant has done any act which has caused the floor to sag or the cracks to develop. If the floor had sagged, it must only be seen as resultant to storage of goods which were a permissible user for a tenant and hence cannot afford to the landlord a ground for ejectment. The case would, therefore, be required to be seen only for a ground relating to the property being unfit and unsafe. This ground could be examined irrespective of whether such a condition arose by the tenant's conduct or not. In other words, even a natural wear and tear of a building that had rendered it unfit and unsafe would be a ground good enough for securing eviction.;