ORDER
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is tenant’s revision directed against the judgment of the appellate Authority whereby an order of ejectment has been passed on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
2. Ejectment of the petitioner was sought on various grounds, including that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application, whereas the appellate Authority has allowed the appeal of the landlord and ordered ejectment of the tenant. This is how the present revision has been filed by the tenant.
3. In order to prove that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the landlord examined Superintending Engineer (Retd.), Chaman Lal, who in his report, Exhibit A-ll, dated 28.8.1989 on inspection of the premises found “From inspection of the building it is seen that it is in a very dilapidated condition. Although some roof wooden Karries and roof wooden planks have been replaced and some pillars contracted to support the structure, yet the overall condition of the building is very bad. There are numerous cracks in the walls. Although some old cracks in the walls have been filled up, new cracks have appeared due to differential settlement of the foundations. The walls have gone out of plumb and the roof Karries are damaged, weak and bent down with the load of the roof. Although some damaged wooden planks and wooden Karries have been replaced, yet the roof is weak and vibrates with the movement of human beings on the roof. As walls of the first floor room are out of plumb and there are numerous cracks in the walls, as shown on the plan, if the First Floor room walls fall any time the Ground Floor roof shall also fall down with its load, embedding everything underneath it. The Western wall QPO of G.F. Building, facing the Street is also out of plumb and leaning very much on the street side and if this wall falls down any time, it is not only hazardous for the persons using the shop, but it is also a potential source of danger to the General Public moving on the road. As such the property is in a dangerous condition.” The Superintending Engineer in his report gave a detailed description of various details of the property in regard to their conditions and concluded as follows:-
“From the above it shall be seen that the building being very old, there has been differential settlement of the foundations and various cracks have developed in the walls. Although these cracks have been partly repaired, they have again widened and reappeared. Due to this differential settlement of foundation, the walls have also gone out of plumb and are leaning out dangerously. The building was constructed with wooden Karrie roofing with wooden beams at places with mud Phuska only, without any Tile Terracing, with the result, that water has been seeping through the Mud Phuska of the roof and has damaged the wooden planks, wooden karries and wooden beams. Although wooden beams have been supported and part wooden, karries planking has been replaced, still the roof is in a dangerous condition. Tile Terracing of Roof of Room III has also been done later on.
With Cracks in the walls, walls partly out of Plumb and sagging roof, with the most part of it covered with Mud Phuska only, the building is in a dangerous condition. The southern wall Rl SI of First Floor Room VII, being out of plumb, there is danger of its falling down any time on the roof of room (IV a) which is very weak and even vibrates with the load of human beings walking over it, resulting into collapse of the building. The Western wall of the building Q.P.O. is also greatly out of plumb and is a potential danger to the General Public moving on the M.C. Road on the Western side of the building. If this wall falls down any time, not only the roof of Room (IV a) and Room (V) will fall down, but there will also be danger to the life of people moving on the M.C. street. As such the building is considered unsafe and unfit for human habitation and need be demolished immediately.”
The appellate Authority finding that the Expert examined by the tenant, namely, retired Sub Divisional Engineer, Shri B.D. Singh, in his report, Exh.R-2/1 opined contrary to what had been observed by Chaman Lal, retired Superintending Engineer, decided to inspect the spot himself. He on inspection recorded the inspection-note. His inspection-note reads as follows:-
“I inspected the premises of the shop described above in the presence of Sh. S.L. Sardana and Sh. Anil Bansal, Advocates for the appellant and Sh. K.C. Chaudhary Advocate for the respondent. The inspection commenced at 12.15 P.M. and it ended at 1.00 P.M. I minutely examined the building from inside, from outside in the south, the only, available open portion and from the top. My observations, made during the aforesaid visit, arc with reference to the site-plan prepared by Sh. B.D. Singh, which is Ex. RW2/2 on the record.
Besides the pillar shown in the north-eastern portion of the building measuring 4 ft, x 2.5 ft. supporting he wooden beam used in laying the roof, there was another support, at point ‘X’ shown by me now in Ex.RW 2/2 of wooden beam. Another support is of iron girder which has already been shown in Ex.RW2/2 walls at ‘AB’ and ‘CD’, the points marked today in Ex.RW2/2, are leaning towards south. The upper end of these walls at the middle seems to be completely out of plumb. Another wall out of plumb is marked by me as ‘EF’. This wall is leaning in the west i.e. towards the passage abutting the building.
Besides the wooden batons (karies) used between the walls ‘AB’ and ‘CD’, all the batons are unshapely, irregular and quite old. They are sagging. The wooden bhatties laid on the wooden batons to lay the roof arc moth eaten and decayed. When the inspection was in progress, it was raining and rainy water was leaking through the entire roof except for the front portion.
There is extensive filling in the walls of the building to cover the cracks and to give face lift to it. The portions shown filled with cement mortar to cover up the cracks were having colour of white wash different from the colour of the white wash on the remaining portion of the walls. The roof also showed use of cement to fill the cracks. The filled cracks in the entire building were numerous and I did not find it feasible to mark them in Ex. RW2/2. The width and depth of the cracks could not be seen as the filling work has been done.’
Appellate Authority having inspected the building in question, accepted the report of Chaman Lal, Superintending Engineer, as his observations in his inspection note dated 27.7.1995 were the same as recorded by Chaman Lal, Superintending Engineer, and found that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In this petition, counsel for petitioner has contended that the Appellate Authority has acted erroneously in ordering ejectment of the tenant on the basis of its inspection-note. He contended that the Appellate Authority is not an Expert and therefore, the inspection-note of Appellate Authority is to be ignored. I find no merit in this contention. Since before the Appellate Authority, two experts, i.e. one examined by the landlord and the other by the tenant, had given contradictory reports, the learned Appellate Authority in order to do substantial justice between the parties inspected the spot itself and having found the report of Chaman Lal, Superintending Engineer, trust-worthy has accepted the same. In this regard, the learned appellate Authority has not acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction and accordingly, on the basis of inspection-note and the report of Superintending Engineer, Chaman Lal, I am satisfied that the building in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the finding of the appellate Authority in this respect calls for no interference. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1932, Sohan Lal v. Amer Nath, (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 273, Shadi Singh v. Rakha, (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 163 (S.C.), have no application to the facts of the present case as the decision in those cases turned on their own facts.
4. Consequently, this revision petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. On the oral request made by counsel for petitioner, petitioner is allowed 3 months’ time to vacate the premises provided he deposits the entire arrears of rent, including that of three months, within one month from today with the court of Rent Controller, along with an undertaking in writing that he shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on or before the expiry of period allowed by this Court.