J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is tenant's appeal against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller but eviction order was passed in appeal.
(2.) THE landlady Smt. Indra Devi sought the ejectment of her tenant Om Parkash from the demised premises which consists of a Chaubara of the house, the ground floor of which is in occupation of the landlady. The ejectment was sought inter alia on the ground that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the landlady bonafide required the same for her own occupation. The tenant denied the said allegations in the written statement. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlady has failed to prove that the portion in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He also found that there was no bonafide requirement for the landlady to occupy the premises. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed by order dated 18.2.1987. In appeal, the appellate authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that :- "The evidence on the record, therefore, fully justifies the inference that the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, thereby making the tenant liable to be ejected therefrom." No finding was given as regards the bonafide requirement of the landlady. Consequently, eviction order was passed on 13.11.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the appellate authority that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was wrong and illegal whereas the Rent Controller rightly found that the building was not unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to the learned counsel, even if the roof has fallen, the building could not be held to be unsafe on that ground. In support of this contention, he referred to Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, 1988(2) RCR 32 : AIR 1988 SC 1432.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this petition. The learned appellate authority has discussed the entire evidence in detail, including the report of the Local Commissioner regarding the condition of the building. According to the report of the Local Commissioner, "the demised premises on the first floor are seventy years old and built up with small sized Lahori bricks. Cement plaster has fallen down at few places and there are cracks of full width into the wall indicating that the walls are unable to take the load of the roof and structure and that the wooden battons are old and rotten and bent. The condition of battons in each of the three compartments of the roof has been given. Due to failure of wooden battons, the roof and the terrace floor is depressed unevenly and the depressions have been indicated in the plan". Thus, relying on the said report of the Local Commissioner, the appellate authority found that the demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. I do not find any illegality or impropriety with the said findings as to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.;