J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THE records of this case were misplaced in the High Court office and they are not traceable as yet. Since it was an urgent matter, the landlord reconstituted the records and filed the copies thereof in this Court and gave to the counsel opposite as well.
(2.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below. The landlord Jaswant Singh and others, sought the ejectment of their tenant Avtar Singh, from the demised premises, which they purchased from the original owner vide sale deed dated February 1, 1985. The ejectment application was filed on June 4, 1985, inter alia on the ground that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statement, the tenant denied that the building, in question, had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller, after discussing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion :- "In the instant case, it is proved from the evidence of Surjit Singh Nagi, expert, who was examined by the applicants and other evidence produced by the applicants and the respondents that the first floor of which the demised premises forms part, has already fallen. Under these circumstances, it can be very well said that the building in question has outlived its age and utility. Since the building as a whole consisting of the ground floor and first floor was constructed at the same time, the mere fact that the first floor has fallen strengthens the presumption that the demised premises have also become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the ground floor of the building of which the first floor has already fallen can be said to be fit and safe for human habitation. The condition of the building, as a whole, is such as can pose danger to the inhabitants of the same. Under the circumstances, it is held that the building in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondents are therefore liable to ejectment on this ground." In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. According to the Appellate Authority, admittedly, the respondent-appellant was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises in the year 1965. Thus it can be safely concluded that the building is not newly constructed. In fact, it is an old building. It cannot be said that if the building has not fallen down for so many years till then, it was likely to remain intact for years to come. In fact, the first floor of the building has fallen down as stated by one of the witnesses examined by the landlord. Thus, there cannot be any guarantee that the existing portion of the building would remain unaffected for the next years to come; hence the findings of the learned Rent Controller on all the issues were affirmed.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as regards the first floor, it had already fallen when the demised premises consisting of the ground floor, were rented out to the tenant in the year 1965. Thus, argued the learned counsel, simply because the first floor was found to have fallen it was no ground to hold that the entire building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. According to the learned counsel, there was no cogent evidence to prove that the demised premises consisting of the ground floor had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as to evict the tenant therefrom. In support of the contention the learned counsel relied upon Rakha v. Shadi Singh, 1981(1) RCR 106 and Meja Singh v. Karnam Singh, 1981 Punjab Law Reporter 386: 1981(2) RCR 469.;