Judgment:
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the judgment passed by the Rent Controller, vide which ejectment of the petitioner, from the demised premises, was ordered on 22nd February, 1999. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 17th August, 2000. Hence this Civil Revision.
2. It is apparent from record that respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short 'the Act') for ejectment of the petitioner from demised premises, description of which was given in the hearing of the application and was marked and shown as 'ABCDEFGH' in the site plan put on record, on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground that demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
3. Application was contested by the petitioner, by controverting averments made in the application.
4. On appraisal of evidence, Rent Controller came to a conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs. 6.50 paise per month and tender made by the petitioner was found to be in order. Regarding second ground that the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that demised premises was in a dilapidated condition and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. After looking into evidence on record, Rent Controller, in paras 11, 12 and 13 observed thus:-
11. I have carefully heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties in support of their respective contentions regarding the condition of the demised premises and regarding the building on which the demised premises is merely a part, and have been able to conclude that the demised premises are unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
12. The applicant has contended that the demised premises is a very old construction which has since out lived its life. It is more than 100 years old. His contention stands proved at least to the effect that the demised premises is very old construction. As per the building expert, this building is more than 70 years old. Thus, the building being an old one is presumed to have outlived its life has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
13. The applicant has contended and proved that the demised premises are a part of the bigger building and most of this building has since become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. During his cross-examination the respondent Ram Parkash RW-2 has also admitted that there was a chobara over the portion in his occupation and the said chobara has since fallen. He further admitted that the roofs of rooms adjoining to his portion, have fallen down. His building expert Vijay Bagga RW-1 has not denied these facts. That shows that the building of which the demised premised are a part has since become dilapidated, unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Such being the position, the demised premises in possession of the respondent will also be deemed to have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Under the similar circumstances, in a case Sampuran Kaur v. Sant Singh, (1983)85 P.L.R. 449 Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that where a demised premises are integral part of a bigger building part of which has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the whole of the building is treated as unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Furthermore, in his technical report Ex.Al which is supported by the photographs Exs.A-3 to A-13, building expert Rajwant Singh AW-1 has opined that the building in question has become beyond repairs. Thus for the reasons aforesaid the demised premises are held to have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. This issue is consequently, held and decide this issue in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.'
As already noticed, the matter went to the appellate court, after noticing evidence on record, i.e. statements of petitioner, respondent and the building experts, it came to the conclusion that the building in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was found, as a matter of fact, that 1st floor construction, which was existing over the demised premises has fallen down and the adjoining portion has also fallen down. When this revision petition was admitted, following contention raised by the petitioner was noticed by the admitting Bench:-
'It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Forums below have not given categoric finding that the demised premises which arc in possession of the petitioner have also become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He has drawn my attention to the observations made by the Rent Controller, wherein it has been observed that the building has become unsafe and that the portion which is in possession of the petitioner shall also be deemed to be taken as unsafe. In this view of the matter, the petition requires consideration.'
This Court feels that evidence on record, specially photographs, authenticity of which has not been controverted, at the time of arguments, clearly indicate that demised premises is in dilapidated condition. Walls are tilting and bricks are coming out from roof, condition of wooden structure like doors etc. have also deteriorated due natural wear and tear. Adjoining portion of the building has already fallen down. By taking note of these photographs and also the statements made by the petitioner himself, admitting that chobara on the first floor which existed over demised premises, has already fallen and adjoining building has also fallen down, both the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the demised building is in dilapidated condition and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The opinion given by the expert Raj want Singh, AW1 stating that building is more than 70 years old and further more it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation appears to be justified, as compared to the testimony made by Vijay Bagga, in favour of the petitioner. Shri Rajwant Singh has given a detailed report Ex.Al, wherein he has stated that the walls bear cracks and are out of plumb at several places, ranging from 1' to 3' as shown in exhibit Al to A13. It has also been stated that other walls were also in dilapidated condition. It has further been stated that the cracks in the demised building are beyond repair and load bearing walls are in unsatisfactory and deteriorating conditions. It has also been stated that the roof is also in a bad shape. Opinion of this expert regarding roof, floor, electric fitting, drainage etc, also seems to be justified, as against the report made by expert produced by the petitioner exhibit R.1 which is not a detailed one. Existence of cracks are even admitted in report exhibit R1. In, support of his report (exhibit R.I) the expert has not brought on record any photograph.
5. This Court feels that the conclusion arrived at by both the courts below is perfectly justified. The building/demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. No case is made out for interference.
6. Dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the demised premises, subject to his clearing arrears of rent, if any, and payment of future rent to the landlord within one month from today.