Smt. Maya Devi vs Lal Chand

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 2467 of 1984 and Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1342 and 2139 of 1985, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

Lal Chand Bansal, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Amar Nath who is in occupation of the shop, in dispute; and his tenant, Maya Devi, who is n occupation of the demised premises, i.e., first floor of another shop primarily on the grounds that the buildings had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. During the pendency of the eviction petition against him, he moved an application for permission to effect repairs thereto. Both the eviction petition and the said petition were consolidated and vide composite order dated April 27, 1982, the learned Rent Controller found that the building had not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As such, the eviction petition was dismissed and the tenant was allowed to effect the repairs. However, on appeal, the learned Appellate Authority appointed a local commissioner on the basis of whose report and the evidence on the record, it was concluded by it that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the eviction order was passed against him. The ejectment of the tenant Maya Devi, as already observed, was also sought, separately, on the same ground, namely, that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the said case, both the authorities below came to the conclusion that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and as such ordered her eviction therefrom. Dissatisfied with the same, Maya Devi, tenant, filed Civil Revision Petition No. 2467 of 1984 whereas Amar Nath, tenant, has filed Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1342 and 2139 of 1985.

Vide this Court order dated August 27, 1985, Shri Ravinder Mohan Gupta, an Advocate of this Court, was appointed as a local Commissioner to visit the spots and to make a report as to the conditions of the buildings in occupation of both the tenants. It was also directed that in case of Maya Devi, tenant, it may also be found as to whether the premises in her occupation were an integral part of the building adjacent thereto or were independent thereof. In case, if there is any common wall between the two, then, what is its effect ?

Report dated September 12, 1985, has been filed by the local commissioner He visited the sites in the presence of the parties and their counsel.

As regards the shop in occupation of Amar Nath, tenant, the local commissioner has found as follows,--

The wall A-1 to A-2, which is common with the shop T-1, has got big cracks and are 5 or 6 in number. In the wall A-1 to A-2, A-1 to A-2, is depressed, has left the roof about 4 from the roof level and one feet in length from the eastern corner of the joint of the wall and the roof.

It has also been observed therein,--

Some of the cracks have been repaired with cement plaster. The portion "C" of this shop is newly constructed as admitted by the attorney of the landlord present and it has R.C C. roof with all the walls plastered and newly constructed".

The learned counsel for Amar Nath, tenant, contended that the condition of the building is to be seen as it exists at present and in case necessary repairs have been made by the tenant, they have to be taken into consideration for holding as to whether the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not.

Even if it be assumed that the tenant had made repairs, even then, according to the finding of the local commissioner, the wall A-1 to A-2 is depressed; it has left the roof about 4" from the roof level and one feet in length from the eastern corner of the joint of the wall and the roof It has further been found by him that on the southern side of the shop T-1 there is a staircase which leads to the first floor of T-1 as well as the chaubaras occupied by Shrimati Maya Devi. Roof of this staircase rests on karries and three karries of the ceiling of the staircase are broken. Thus, from the report of the local commissioner, it is quite evident that the building in occupation of Amar Nath, tenant, as it exists at present, has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In view of the evidence on the record and the findings of the Appellate Authority coupled with the report of the local commissioner, I do not find any merit in the revision petitions filed on behalf of Amar Nath, tenant.

Consequently, Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1342 and 2139 of 1985 fail and are dismissed with costs. However, Amar Nath, tenant, is allowed three months'' time to vacate the shop, in question; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and the advance rent for three months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from today along with an undertaking, in writing, that after the expiry of the said period of three months, he shall vacate the shop and hand over its vacant possession to the landlord.

As regards the condition of the chaubaras in possession of the tenant Maya Devi, it has been found by the local commissioner that the present condition of the premises in occupation of the said tenant was good. The whole of the portion has cement plastering and having no cracks. It has also been observed by him that on going on the roof top of the chaubaras, he found that the roof had brick-tile flooring and its condition was good Thus, in the case of Maya Devi, tenant, from the report of the local commissioner, it could not be held that the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

Consequently, Civil Revision Petition No. 2467 of 1984 succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the authorities below are set aside. There will be no order as to costs.