Judgment:
ORDER
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant's revision.
2. Pushpa Wati (respondent herein) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of the tenant, namely Ram Parkash, from the property in dispute which consists of two shops on the ground that the property in dispute is 70 years' old. It was als6 alleged in the petition that its floor level is about two feet below the road level and water get accumulate during the rainy season ; the entire building is in a dilapidated condition and thus the same is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
3. The petition was contested by the tenant who denied the allegations made in the petition.
4. The Rent Controller, after finding that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, passed an order of ejectment against the tenant. The tenant preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. It may be mentioned at this stage that tenant died during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority and his legal representatives were brought on the record. This civil revision has been filed by his widow Mst. Phollan Rani who has impugned the orders of the authorities below.
5. Mr. S, P. Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities below have misread the report of the building expert, AW 3/2. He further contended that the premises in possession of the tenant require only minor repairs and the building has not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation a claimed by the landlady.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the courts below have returned a finding in favour of the landlady and, therefore, calls for no inteference by this Court.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this civil revision deserves to succeed. The order of ejectment was passed by the authorities below primarily on the ground that the floor level of the shops is about two feet below the road level and, therefore, during rainy season, water must be accumulating in the building. It was also found that the walls have developed some cracks and roof of one shop requires replacement. In support of this finding, the Appellate Authority relied upon the report of the Building Expert, AW 3/A. I find from the record that the shops in possession of the tenant is a part of bigger building The remaining building is in possession of the landlady. In her petition, though she has alleged that the property is more than 70 years' old and the same is in a dilapidated condition, yet Shri B. L. Nanda, AW-3. Building Expert, produced by the landlady has not stated in his report with regard to the condition of the building in possession of the landlady. Nothing has been brought on record to show whether the remaining building is also below the road level. Shrl B. L. Nanda, in his report AW-3/A has stated that roof of shop No. 2 had been re-laid as the original roof made out of kairies and wooden beams had given in. It was replaced by R. S. beams instead of wooden beams and Tees instead of Karries. In the site-plan he has shown certain cracks in the two shops and from the same it is evident that there are two cracks in Shop No. 1 and three cracks in Shop No. 2. Shri B L. Nanda Building Expert, in his statement or report has not mentioned as to whether the building in possession of the landlady has also developed cracks or not. In my view, appearance of a few cracks in a building does not raise a presumption that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the present case, the building expert himself has admitted in his statement that the cracks can be repaired With regard to the roof of Shop No. 1, firstly there is no allegation in the petition that the roof requires replacement and secondly, even if it requires replacement, that cannot be a ground for ejecting a tenant on the plea that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. According to the Building Expert, roof of shop No; 2 was reward and for that matter I see no reason as to why roof of shop No. 1 cannot be re-laid as was done in the case of shop. No. 2. It has also come on record that there is a drain in front of the shops and the water passes through the drain and therefore simply because the level of the shop is lower than the road level, is not enough to assume that water must be accumulating during the rainy season.
8. In this view of the matter, the orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed and the orders of the authorities below are set aside with no order as to costs. Civil Misc. No. 3406-CII-1985 also stands disposed of.