RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL,J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the judgment of the Appellate Authority Rohtak dated 29th January, 1981. An application for ejectment was filed by the landlord against his tenant inter alia on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was contested by the tenant who denied the allegations of the petitioner.
(2.) THE Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the building was not unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Consequently, he dismissed the application. On appeal, the judgment of the Rent Controller was affirmed by the appellate Authority. The landlord has come up in revision to this Court. The only question that arises for determination is whether the house has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In order to prove the allegations, the landlord produced Partap Singh P.W. 3, Ganeshi P.W. 4 and Mr. G.R. Maini, retired Executive Engineer, P.W.5, Partap Singh was a sweeper in the house and he deposed that the building had become unfit for human habitation. He is supported by Ganeshi P.W. 4, who is residing opposite to the house in dispute, and Mr. G.R. Maini, P.W.5. Their statements have been rejected by the authorities below. An application was filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller that the commission be appointed to inspect the premises and submit his report as Mr. G.R. Maini was not allowed by the tenant to inspect the same. The application was rejected by the trial Court. In view of the circumstances and the conflicting statements of the witnesses, I appointed Mr. R.M. Gupta as a Commissioner and directed him to visit the spot and submit his report. He inspected the building in the presence of the parties and submitted the report dated 8th September, 1983. To this report, some objections have been filed by the tenant.
(3.) THE commission, after inspection of the building, has come to the conclusion that the portion in dispute is not fit for human habitation. His opinion is supported by reasons given therein. In the report, he stated that some of the doors have been eaten up. He has further stated that walls of some of the rooms are bulging out and some bal as and the wooden planks in the rooms are worn out. He has also opined three balas from one end and four from the other end of the roof of the Verandah are bent from the middle. He also pointed out a crack in the wall of a room on the first floor. The report is supported by the witnesses produced by the petitioner. There are no grounds to disbelieve the report of Mr. Gupta who made the same after spot inspection. Another report of a Commissioner appointed in another case between the parties has been produced in this Court by the tenant. That report is dated 8th September, 1981. The report has not been properly proved in this case. Admittedly, the house is very old and there might be some deterioration in the building after the said report was made. In the circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the said report. It may also be mentioned that the house in dispute is a part of bigger house and some of its portions have already fallen.;