- (1.) The civil revision is by the landlord whose petition for eviction was dismissed by both the Courts below. The landlord sought for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent; that the demised premises had become unfit for human habitation and that the tenant was guilty of such acts which diminished the value and utility of the demised premises. The demised premises was a single room at the first floor and two rooms at the ground floor. The tenant had contended that he continued to be in the building in the same condition which was let out to him and no portion had fallen down in the manner contended by the landlord. He relied on the evidence of RW 2 Bhagwan Dass, who was residing in the adjoining house for the last about 20 years and RW 1 Inderjit, who was running the business at a distance of about four houses from the premises in question for the last about 15 years. Both of them had asserted that the building was intact and no portion of it had fallen down. The appellate Court observed that there was no reason why the neighbours were speaking falsehood against the landlord. The landlord had also complained that the tenant was putting up construction of toilet and adding kitchen. This contention was also rejected by the appellate Court by holding that the best piece of evidence which could have been brought by the landlord was to show that the additions and alterations were raised during the pendency of the case by having a Commissioner appointed, while the construction was in progress and to report about the same. The appellate Court held that there was no explanation at all by the landlord but he was trying to contend that the tenant had himself admitted about the poor quality of building and how it had become unfit for habitation. This contention was also rejected as an attempt of the landlord to explain to his own lapse of not securing the best evidence and there was no admission on the part of the tenant that the building had become unfit for human habitation. On the other hand, the Courts below elicited the portions of the written statement denying the landlord's contention about the building as being unfit for human habitation.
(2.) The landlord had actually placed evidence of a building expert as AW 3. who had noted down some additions and alterations in the premises in question. The evidence of the witness was tested on whether he knew anything about the original construction and how he identified any additions and alterations had been made. The witness admitted in the cross-examination that all the rooms of the building had been constructed with nanak shahi bricks and standard bricks and the roof of the building was made of girders supported by balas and there were tiles over the roof as well as wooden planks. The building was found no doubt to be 70 to 90 years old but the Court held that it would be no ground to hold that the building was in a dilapidated condition. On the other hand, the tenant relied on the statement of an Architect, who gave a report and plan to show that the condition of the building to be quite fit for human habitation. He also found that the toilet attached to the house seemed like a permanent construction of building and also had been made of nanak shahi and standard bricks. The point against the tenant however was that the tenant had claimed some compensation at the time when there had been a damage to the building on account of heavy floods. The tenant had received ? 1,500/- towards the damage from the government. The tenant explained that there was really no damage but many of the local persons were receiving financial assistance from the Government and he also received the same. Distributing largesse by the Government is the way we have pampered the public at various times. It is indeed a manner of administration of the State that gives some sops and freebies now and then as a welfare state or to take a less charitable view to placate the general public ire against mis-governance. It is nothing unusual that a tenant has received some State dole when there were floods affecting several tenements. I do not think that even if it is true that the nature's fury that gave rise to compensation for an occupant, it could be taken advantage by a landlord to demand that eviction on that basis that the building is unfit for human habitation. Even the financial aid by the state ought to have been to keep the property in repair and not for mental suffering. I have no reason to assume that the money if received for a good cause could have been allowed to go waste and not spent on the property for repairing the same.
(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant states that at some point of time the landlord was stating before Court that building had completely fallen down and the Court had directed the landlord to give an affidavit to that effect with latest photographs. I find such direction was given by this Court on 10.01.2011, but as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the landlord has not filed photographs nor filed any affidavit in the manner directed by this Court. I have no reason to differ from the view expressed by the Courts below. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.;