Back
1986 Supreme(P&H) 376
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.V.Gupta, J.
Smt. Asha Rani
Versus
Surinder Kumar Verma
Civil Revision No. 957 of 1986,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 21, 1986
The court upheld the eviction order based on the premises being unsafe and the genuine requirement of the landlord for personal use and occupation.
Headnote:
Eviction - Unsafe Premises - The court affirmed the findings that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the landlord required the premises for personal use and occupation.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he required the same for his own use and occupation. The eviction order was passed by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below. It affirmed the observation that the building had become unfit for human habitation during the existence of the tenancy.
Issues: The main issues were the safety and habitability of the premises and the landlord's requirement for personal use and occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the findings of the authorities below regarding the unsafe condition of the premises and the landlord's genuine requirement for personal use and occupation.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the tenant was allowed three months to vacate the premises, provided all arrears of rent were paid and an undertaking in writing was given to vacate the premises after the specified period.
J.V.Gupta, J.
1. This is tenants revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.
2. The landlord Surinder Kumar Verma sought the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises inter alia on the grounds that the same had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that he required the same for his own use and occupation. These grounds were controverted by her written statement. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises, in dispute, had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was also found that the same were required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation as he was residing in a building owned by his father and wanted to shift to his own house. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this revision petition in this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence on the record, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below. In the judgement under revision, the Appellate Authority has observed that it leaves no manner of doubt that the building in question has become unfit for human habitation during the existence of the tenancy.
4. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears of rent, if any, and an undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period the premises would be vacated and vacant possession would be handed over to the landlord, are given before the Rent Controller within one month from today and the monthly rent for the said period is paid in advance by the tenth of every month.
