The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Rent Control Act in determining the fitness of a building for human habitation.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. This is a tenants petition challenging the order of ejectment passed by the courts below on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

2. The respondent-landlords have sought the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he is a tenant of a shop bearing No. 5402/3 and of Balakhana. The Balakhana in fact situated over shop No. 5398-5399. It was the case of the landlords that his grand-father of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1939 and that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is relevant to reproduce the grounds of ejectment which read as under:

"(ii) That the premises mentioned above has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as the large portion of the roof which constituted the courtyard of Chaubara has since fallen down and the roof of the Chaubara under his occupation is in a dilapidated condition and the respondent, without the written consent of the petitioners, replaced some of the Karis of one of the Chaubara mark "A" with "tors" and has replaced the roof of the other chaubara marked "B" by replacing wooden stairs by iron girdars and the respondent, without the written consent of the petitioners removed the Archeas and raised the level of the floor and also replaced the roof of the shop in his occupation, thereby materially impaired the value and utility of the premises in question."

3. The respondent denied the allegation that the roof of chaubara is in dilapidated condition or that the respondent has replaced any of the karis or any of the chaubara or that the respondent is trying to replace the wooden sehteer by iron girdars. The respondent also denied the replacement of the roof of the shop under his tenancy.

4. In support of his case the landlord appeared as A.W.3 as also produced Krishan Lal Khurana A.W. 1 to prove the dilapidated condition of the building to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. A.W. 1 Krishan Lal Khurana proved on record his report Ex.P.1 regarding the condition of the building. On the other hand, the tenant himself appeared as R.W.1 and closed his evidence.

5. Before adverting to the controversy on merits it may be pointed out that the star argument of the petitioner was that the tenant has entered into a compromise with the petitioner in the last week of February, 1991 wherein he surrendered possession of Balakhana. In terms of the compromise, the landlord is alleged to have demolished the shop itself and not only the Balakhana. It was further stated that the tenant has carried out repairs over the property. The tenant further alleged that at the time of compromise Amar Nath and Kamal Kumar were present at the spot and Amar Nath was brought by the petitioner. However, recording of such evidence was objected to by the landlord and the following note was recorded at the footnote of the examination-in-chief: "All the facts are beyond the scope of pleadings and the witness is directed to state only the pleaded facts". It may further be pointed out that the landlord appeared as A.W.3 on 19.2.1991.

6. Learned Rent Controller relied upon the report of Krishan Lal Khurana A.W. 1 to hold that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller also found that the respondent has concocted a story regarding the compromise. The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller after rejecting the argument of the tenant that A.W. 1 is not Civil Engineer and therefore, his report and testimony regarding the condition of the building cannot carry any weight. Learned Appellate Authority relied upon the statement of A.W. 1 corroborated by the photographs of the premises and the sworn testimony of A.W.3 held that the portion of the building has already fallen down. The mortar has lost its cohesive strength and the plaster has fallen down. The structure may crumble and fall a