J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition, whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the courts below.
(2.) THE landlord sought ejectment of his tenant from the shop in dispute, inter alia, on the ground that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In written statement, the tenant controverted the said allegations. The learned Rent Controller found that neither the tenant has committed any act which is likely to impair the value and utility of demised shop nor is the demised shop, in any way, unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In view of that finding, the ejectment application was dismissed, vide order dated 23.12.1983. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller, with the observations that the evidence in the present case is insufficient to prove that the demised shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation because of the falling of its roof and that the roof, which presently existed, was reconstructed by the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same the landlord has filed this petition in this Court. Along with the civil revision, the landlord also moved Civil Misc. No. 854-CII of 1986 for issuing a Commission to make local investigation as to whether the premises, in dispute, has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation or not. Vide this Court's order dated 20.8.1986, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I found that it was a fit case where a local commissioner be appointed to find out the present condition of the premises, in dispute. Consequently, Mr. P.N. Aggarwal, Advocate of this Court, with the consent of both the parties was appointed as a Local Commissioner to visit the spot after informing the counsel for the parties. He was required to submit his report as the present condition of the premises, in dispute in order to find out as to whether they had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not. The report dated 1.9.1986 has been filed by the Local Commissioner. He has given detailed reasons as to how he came to the conclusion that the premises, in dispute, was in a dilapidated condition. Ultimately, he found that the shop, in question, is in a poor shape and dilapidated condition and it requires laying of proper roof and extensive repairs. He also observed that :- "Though it was not raining, the water was dripping underneath the vacant portion of the adjoining staircase and falling in the shop and I found that certain wooden ballis were also fixed in the corner to support the roof." The learned counsel for the tenant-respondent challenged the said report of the Local Commissioner and contended that from the said report, it could not be said that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, particularly when the landlord himself was residing on the first floor. Moreover, argued the learned counsel, there was ample evidence on the record in the form of expert evidence that the building has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as alleged by the landlord.
(3.) IN view of the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, I am of the firm view that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The said report was necessitated because, according to the Appellate Authority, the evidence in the present case was insufficient to prove that the demised shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation because of the falling of its roof and that the roof, which presently existed, was reconstructed by the tenant. Be that as it may, I do not find any flaw in the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by this Court. Moreover, whether the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation or not, can only be verified by visiting the spot and the testimony of the witnesses produced by the respective parties is not of much consequence. Both the parties are interested to prove their cases in their own way and it was under these circumstances that an Advocate of this Court was appointed as the Local Commissioner. Thus, in view of the report of the Local Commissioner, with which I fully agree, I find that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf was thus wrong, illegal and improper.;