Judgment:
J.V. Gupta, C.J.
1. This is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below on the ground that the premises, in dispute, bed become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
2. Sham Lal, landlord, filed the ejectment application seeking ejectment of his tenant Sant Lal from the house in dispute. It was pleaded inter alia that the demised premises bed become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, therefore, the tenant was liable to ejectment, In the written statement, the tenant denied the said averments The learned Rent Controller earlier appointed a local commissioner who gave his report dated September 3, 1984, and later on himself mida spot inspaition on October 21,1987. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on the record aid site inspection, came to the conclusion that the landlord was entitled to eject his tenant on the ground that the portion under his tenancy was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Consequeatly, the ejetment order was passed on October 19, 1987. In appeal, the learned appellate authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the eviction order.
3. According to the tenant petitioner after the spot inspection was made by the Rent Controller, he should not have decided the ejectmeat application. Moreover, the local commissioner inspected the site without any notice to the tenant and in his absence. The findings of the authorities below in this behalf that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation were wrong and illegal.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below as to be interfered within the revisional jurisdiction.
5. Event Sant Lal, tenant, himself admitted that after the rains of 1984, 2/3 bricks of the room in his possession had fallen that he contacted his landlord to get them repaired upon which he was asked to get the repairs carried out himself. The present litigation was started by the landlord in August 1984, itself It is in evidence that the ceiling of the room under the possession of the tenant had been laid with very old planks and karis which appeared weak and had been eaten by moth and aunts and there was no guarantee that the roof would not fall any time. In view, of this concurrent finding, there is an scope for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
6. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs However, the tenant is allowed two months' time to vacate the premises ; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with an undertaking, in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to landlord.