ORDER

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral). – The respondent, M.L. Kapoor, who is stated to be 85 years of age now, filed an ejectment application against his tenant Jaidev Singh on 19.9.1978. As per the petition, the demised premised, which was a house, situated in Ambala cantonment, had been rented out to the tenant on a rent of Rs.26.06 per month in addition to water tax. It was pleaded that a sum of Rs.104.24 on account of rent from 1.5.1978 to 31.8.1978 and a further amount of Rs.5.21 paise on account of water tax were due. It was also pleaded that the tenant had committed some acts which had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised premises and that the building in question, which consisted of five rooms (out of which four had fallen down and the 5th room was also in a dilapidated condition), had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The tenant filed his written statement and contested the claim of the petitioners raising several pleas. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the premises in dispute have become dangerous and unfit for human habitation?

2. Whether the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the house?

3. Whether the applicant has served any notice to the respondent terminating his tenancy? If not to what effect?

4. Relief.

2. The Rent Controller in his order dated 7.6.1991, held (on issue No.1) that the demised premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as from the evidence adduced by the parties, it was clear that several portions thereof had completely fallen and that one room, which remained intact, was also in a dilapidated condition. For arriving at this finding the Rent Controller primarily relied upon reports of two Local Commissioners, Exhs.AW2/1 and AW3/1, which clearly stated to the above facts. The objection raised at the time of the arguments that as these reports had been made in some other litigation between the same parties but with respect to the same premises they could not be read into evidence, was rejected by holding that there was no bar that such reports could not be entertained or taken into account. The Rent Controller also observed (on issue No.2) that as the tenant had re-constructed the demised premises after the same had been fallen down as was clear from the reports of the Local Commissioners as also from the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the landlord against the tenant, the value and utility of the demised premises had also been impaired, as no permission had been obtained from the landlord for the re-construction. The Rent Controller also observed that the parties had not raised any argument on issue No.3 and having held as above, allowed the ejectment application vide order dated 7.6.1991. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal before the Appellate Authority, who affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. The present petition has been filed by the tenant.

3. This case came up for hearing in the last week, on which date Shri Rajesh Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord pointed out that the landlord was now about 85 years of age and that the case should be heard immediately. As the petitioner’s counsel Shri S.K.S. Bedi had not appeared before me on that date, the case was adjourned for today and Shri Rajesh Garg also undertook to inform Mr. Bedi about the date of hearing. Mr. Garg has today stated that he had informed Mr. Bedi about today’s date. Mr. Bedi, has, however, not put in appearance. In the light of the fact that the matter has been pending in one Court or the other for the last twenty years and the landlord, though successful in two Courts, has not been able to get possession of his property on account of a stay order granted in the present proceedings, I so not deem it appropriate to adjourn the matter any further. I have accordingly heard Mr. Rajesh Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully perused the record.

4. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded on issue Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the dangerous condition of the property as also the impairment of its value and utility. It will be seen that the two authorities below have primarily relied upon the reports of the Local Commissioners, which were recorded in a suit filed by the landlord against the tenant for mandatory injunction with respect to the same property. A reading of these reports clearly shows that the building in question had become unsafe unfit for human habitation and that the tenant had in fact made an attempt to re-construct the building to make it fit for use leading to the filing of the suit. It is also clear from the judgment in the aforesaid proceedings, that the re-construction had been made without the consent of the landlord nor with the sanction of the Municipal authorities. It is also clear from the reports, which includes photographs of the demised premises that the building had fallen down and the malba was clearly discernible in the photographs. It is also evident that in an attempt to re-construct the property, the tenant had in fact changed the entire nature of the property. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no interference is called for in the present petition.

5. Dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

********