P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The present revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Barnala affirmed by the order of the appellate authority whereby the eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered on the ground that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
(2.) To prove his case, the landlord had examined Dev Raj Gupta retired S.D.O. from the PWD (B&R) Department who was working as Consultant Engineer and Building Expert and who had examined the shop and submitted his report. As against that, the tenant examined one Bir Davinder Pal a Civil Engineer who stated that he had experience of Civil Engineering and Building Construction Project for more than 13 years. Besides this, both the landlord and tenant also appeared as their own witnesses in support of their respective cases.
(3.) The trial Court while considering as to whether or not the shop in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, noted the deposition of Shri Dev Raj Gupta as hereunder: "This witness, being expert further has deposed that he handled and supervised numerous building works and complexes including designing construction and maintenance works, then during this said tenure, he appeared being building expert in different Courts of Patiala and Sangrur districts during the last 9 years in numerous cases and has sufficient experience in the field of said business. This witness further has deposed that he as per permission of the Court, inspected the demised shop situated at Dhanoula road, Barnala on 3.2.2001 in the presence of both the parties. This witness further has deposed that he inspected the shop Mark-A depicted in the site plan from each and every angle and prepared rough plan and rough notes pertaining to shop in its present position. Then he prepared the fair plan, notes and report in his office at Nabha. The shop in dispute being inspected by him on 16.2.2001 seemed to be about 50-52 years old, from the type of construction and quality of material used for its construction. The shop inspected by him, being maintained poorly by the respondent also looked much older than its age, as per observation detailed in his report Ex.A1, supported by site plan Ex.A2 bearing his signatures. This witness has further deposed that he in view of his detailed report is of considered view that the shop in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, because it is reached at the stage, from where it cannot be made fit for human habitation by any extent of repair as it requires reconstruction afresh." ;