- (1.) The Civil Revision is at the instance of the landlord assailing the order passed by the appellate Court reversing the decision of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
(2.) The landlord had three grounds to urge for eviction: (i) for non-payment of rent from 01.04.1982 to 30.09.1984; (ii) bona fide requirement of personal use and occupation; and (iii) the building has become unfit and unsafe for habitation. While addressing the issue of non-payment of rent, the focus was on the actual rent payable. While the landlord was contending that the rent payable was ' 50/-, the tenant contended that the agreed rent was only ' 30. The Rent Controller held that the rent was only ' 30/- as contended by the tenant and what was paid by the tenant showed that during the relevant period, there had been no default. As regards the ground of eviction that the building was unfit and unsafe for habitation, the landlord had a Commissioner appointed to inspect the property and report. An Engineer, who was said to have inspected the property and given a report, was also examined in Court. While he said that the wooden rafters had been eaten up by white ants and the walls were crumbling in many places, he admitted in the cross-examination that he had not given any notice before his visit to the tenant. Elsewhere in the same examination, it was elicited that the tenant's wife was there.
(3.) The trial Court held that it will be risky to rely on the report of the Engineer, who had prepared a report without even notice of inspection to the tenant and, therefore, it could not be acted upon. The appellate Court confirmed the same finding with regard to the status of the building and why the report of the Engineer could not be acted upon. The appellate Court had also confirmed the finding regarding the issue relating to the quantum of rent. Both as regards the challenge in revision on a factual consideration on the quantum of rent and the reasons given by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court for why it could not rely on the report of the Engineer, I cannot take a different view. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord would urge that a Commissioner could again be appointed by this Court to assess the quality of construction and the present status. At least prima facie, I am convinced that if the landlord was trying to make out a case of a building in a dilapidated state and that it was unfit, the mere fact that the case stood on for 25 years without any untoward incident is good enough to say that the landlord was trying to make a certain exaggeration about the quality of the construction. I cannot also fish out any information at this stage for the benefit of the landlord. I would, therefore, not accommodate the oral plea put across the bar that the property could be assessed as regards the safety by an inspection by a Commissioner to be undertaken again. I will affirm the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court on the two grounds urged already.;