RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) The petitioners-tenants lay challenge to the order dated 14.2.2008 passed by the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, accepting the appeal filed by the landlady, reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller, Charkhi Dadri dated 30.7.2004 and ordering their ejectment.
(2.) THE respondent-landlady filed a petition for ejectment of Krishan Patwari, the tenant, who has since passed away and is now represented by the petitioners on the grounds of non payment of rent and that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as the walls had developed cracks and water was leaking from the roof. In response, the tenant did not deny the damage to the building but asserted that the damage could be repaired. The damage was attributed to the of age of the house, floods that had inundated the house and persistent neglect by the previous landlord and the present landlady, and as a result, the Western walls, the front portion had developed cracks and the roof and parts of the verandah walls had started leaking. The tenant therefore served a legal notice dated 9.7.1996 calling upon the landlady, to repair the tenanted premises. On her failure to do so, the tenant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying that the landlady be directed to carry out repairs. It was, therefore, asserted that as the tenanted premises are repairable, the ejectment petition be dismissed. After appraisal of the respective pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues :- "i). Whether the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, respondent is liable to be evicted from the same ? OPP ii). Whether tender of rent made by the respondent to the petitioner is invalid and so respondent is liable to be evicted ? OPP. iii) Whether petitioner has no locus-standi to file the petition ? OPD. iv) Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR. v) Whether petition is false and frivolous and petitioner has not come in the Court with clean hands and petition has been filed in order to harass the respondent and, therefore, he is entitled to special costs ? OPR. vi) Relief."
(3.) THE issue with respect to non payment of rent was decided in favour of the tenants, as arrears of rent were tendered. On the issue, whether the tenanted premises were unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the learned Rent Controller held that the landlady had failed to establish the extent and nature of the damage and merely because the tenanted premises remained under water for a month or had developed cracks, it could not be held that they had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The ejectment petition was, therefore, dismissed.;