JUDGMENT
H.S. Bedi, J.
1. Chopat Rai Chopra alias Parma Nand, father of Som Dutt respondent-landlord, let out the demised premises to Durga Dass, husband of Suhag Wanti, respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 6 on a monthly rent of Rs. 4.50 ps on 10.4.1963 for a period of one year less a day. Durga Dass also executed a rent note in favour of Chopat Rai. After the expiry of the period of tenancy, Durga Dass became a statutory tenant of the demised premises. Chopat Rai thereafter died and the tenancy devolved on his son Som Dutt and after the death of Durga Dass all the respondents became the tenants under the petitioner on the same terms and conditions. A petition for ejectment was thereafter filed by Som Dutt on 3.2.1984 on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondents contested the petition and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: –
1. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment on the ground mentioned in para No. 4 of the petition? OPA.
2. Relief. 2. Som Dutt appeared as AW1 and also examined Kuldip Singh Saini, an Architect as AW2 and proved the site plan Ex. A1, rent note Ex. A2, report Ex. A3 and the plan Ex. A4. The tenants on the other hand, examined Sohan Lal and Suresh Kumar Arora as RW1 and RW2, respectively. The Rent Controller examined the evidence on record and in particular that of Som Dutt and Kuldip Singh Saini, who had given his report Ex. P4 and concluded that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The controller also placed reliance on the statement of RW1 Sohan Lal, one of the tenants, who admitted in his evidence that the entire building was made of small bricks embedded in mud plaster and that a shop which was a part of the same building and in possession of one Udho Ram had fallen down. He also admitted that when Kuldip Singh Saini had visited the site, he had observed that one portion of the roof of the verandah and one of the rooms had been given artificial supports. The Rent Controller accordingly held that the building appeared to be very old and had been made of small bricks and from the evidence of the respondents themselves, it appeared that it was in a very dilapidated condition. The ejectment application was accordingly allowed vide order dated 8.8.1985. The matter was thereafter taken in an appeal by the tenants, but the same too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 3.9.1987.
3. The present petition has been filed by the tenants.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their assistance.
5. The broad facts have not been denied. Mr. Y.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, argued that the statements of Sohan Lal and Suresh Kumar Arora when read as a whole did not prove the case of the landlord as has been held by the Courts below and the some small support given to the verandah or the room would not by itself show that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
6. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, the counsel for the respondents has, however, urged that a cumulative reading of the evidence of the landlord and that of the tenants clearly proved the case of the landlord beyond doubt.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority against the tenants. Even otherwise I am of the view that the evidence adduced clearly proves the case of the landlord. Sohan Lal and Kuldip Singh Saini clearly proved not only the age of the building, but also the fact that the verandah and one of the rooms were being propped up by artificial means. This fact was also admitted by RW2 Suresh Kumar Arora and Sohan Lal,
one of the tenants. It has also come in the evidence of the tenants that one shop in the
same building, which was in possession of Udho Ram had also fallen down. It is also
the admitted position that the adjoining portion of the premises in dispute had already
been demolished as also the chobaras in this demised premises. It is also virtually the
admitted position that small bricks ceased to be used about 50 years prior to the date of
the filing of the petition and the finding of the Rent Controller, therefore, that the building appeared to be more than 100 years old cannot be faulted in any manner. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.