V.K.JHANJI,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition directed against the order of the appellate Authority whereby tenant has been ordered to be ejected after setting aside the order of the Rent Controller.
(2.) EJECTMENT of the tenant was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent impairment of value and utility of the premises personal requirement of the landlords and also on the ground that the tenanted premises in occupation of the tenant have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, on contest, ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller. On appeal, the appellate Authority on finding that the premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, allowed the appeal and in consequence thereof, ordered ejectment of the tenant. The order of the appellate Authority is being impugned in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the tenant contended that the Rent Controller himself had inspected the premises and on inspection, found the premises not unfit and unsafe for human habitation and for this matter, the Appellate Authority ought not to have interfered with the finding of the Rent Controller. In reply, counsel for the landlord referred to evidence on record impugning the notice issued by the Municipal Committee, report of the Expert and also the photographs of the premises.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel at length and on perusal of the record I am of the view that the finding of the appellate Authority calls for no interference. The appellate Authority on the appreciation of evidence on record, found that "eastern wall of the shop in question has fallen, battens are weak, its roof can collapse at any moment, this is a sufficient evidence to hold that the shop in question is unfit for human habitation as well as unsafe." As a matter of fact, inspection report of the Rent Controller itself makes it very clear that the shop in dispute has really become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce a part of the report which was also noticed by the Rent Controller :- "The shop in dispute consists of two compartments. The construction is very old made of Lahori bricks and plastered in mud. The front compartment opening towards the main road is used for preparation of and sale of sweets. The rear compartment was being used for preparation of sweets by making a hearth in the floor. The eastern wall of the rear compartment of the shop has almost fallen except about two to three feet in height from the level of the road. Since the battens are not kept on this wall, their (battens) position has remained unchanged. The falling of the eastern wall of the rear compartment has also effected a slight part of the wall of front compartment. One of the battens on the western side of the front compartment of shop is very weak. The plank above his batten are also bending downwards. This batten can fall down any moment because the roof above this batten is heavy. The other battens of both the compartments of the shop as well as the planks in between the battens are intact and can bear the burden of the roof for a year or even more. It was admitted by the respondent at the time of inspection that eastern wall of the rear compartment of the shop fell down due to rains in the last season. It may also be mentioned here that a room on the back side of the rear compartment of the shop is in dilapidated condition. The eastern wall of the said room has completely fallen down and the roof is also in bad shape." The Rent Controller, thus, on inspection found that the battens can bear the burden of the roof for a year or so. The eastern wall of the rear compartment of the shop was also found to have fallen down. The photographs of the shop, Exs. A-26, 27, 28, 29, A-II and A-12m show that the complete shop his fallen down and only bricks are lying on the spot. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed one month's time to vacate the premises provided he pays/deposits the entire arrears of rent within fifteen days from to date. Petition dismissed.;