Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 317 (PNJ)

Des Raj v. Raj Kumar

2003-02-19

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Des Raj petitioner, who is the tenant, has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated 01.09.1987 passed by the Appellate Authority, Patiala, vide which the order passed by the Rent Controller, Patiala dated 03.10.1986 was set aside and order of ejectment was passed against him. 2. The respondent Raj Kumar (landlord) filed the ejectment application on the ground that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, which was rented out to the respondent vide rent note dated 27.08.1973 at the rate of Rs. 900/- per annum. Though the said ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but on appeal the Appellate Authority set aside the order and passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner after holding that the premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, therefore, the tenant is liable to be ejected. 3. The Appellate Authority has recorded the aforesaid findings on the basis of the report of Local Commissioner, appointed by the Court, who visited the demised premises on 06.11.1982 in presence of both the parties. His report is Ex.AW4/1, which has been duly proved by his testimony as AW4. It has been reported in the said report that the back portion of the shop mark B shown in the plan Ex.AW4/3 is in delapidated condition. It has been found that three battons of the shop were missing and that the upper side of the roof was visible. It has also been reported that four battons on the eastern wall had left their places and some of the battons were moth-eaten. In addition to the said evidence, the testimony of AW.3 Narinder Singh Bhatia, who was retired Civil Engineer, has also been relied upon by the Appellate Authority, who has corroborated the claim of the landlord and supported the report of the Local Commissioner. After taking into consideration all the evidence available on the record, the learned Appellate Authority found that the shop in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. 4. After taking into consideration all the evidence available on the record, the learned Appellate Authority found that the shop in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the findings recorded by the learned Appellate Authority only back room of the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, therefore, the petitioner-tenant cannot be ejected at least from the front room, which is safe and intact. In support of his contention, he relied upon Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 1432 and Jita Ram and Anr. v. Sham Lal and Anr., (1993-1)103 P.L.R. 291. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and do not find any force in the same. Admittedly, the shop in question consists of two rooms. As per the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, back room of the shop in question is in delapidated condition and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It has also come in evidence that the front khan of the shop is also in delapidated condition. As per the record of AW.3 Narinder Singh Bhatia, which has been proved on record as Ex.AW3/1, four battons of the first room of the shop were rotten and their wall side ends were completely eaten up and hanging. According to this report, the shop in question was indelapidated condition. Front portion of the shop was also unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Similar is the report of the Local Commissioner. In view of this position, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner; and the authorities cited by him are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Appellate Authority. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present revision peti tion and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.