The central legal point established in the judgment is that the standard of evidence required to prove the unfitness of a property for human habitation must be met, and the mere existence of cracks in a building may not be sufficient to warrant a finding of unfitness.

Amar Dutt, J.

1. The petitioner, through this petition, seeks to challenge the judgment dated 26.11.1981 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar, by which the order passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar on 9.6.1981 in his favour was reversed and petition for ejectment of Bhushan Kumar Sharma respondent was dismissed.

2. The petitioner had moved an application for ejectment of the respondent asserting that except one room of the entire ground floor of Property No. 2361/III-28, Bagh Rama Nand, Gali No. 3, Amritsar had been rented out to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The tenancy had been terminated by a valid notice dated 9.4.1976. The ejectment of the respondent was sought on the grounds that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as the R.B. Slabs of roof thereof have developed cracks and rainy water starts leaking percolating therefrom and that the walls are cracked and the whole structure is in the imminent danger of falling down and that the respondent is guilty of such act and conducts which amount to nuisance to the occupants of the adjoining building and the petitioner.

3. The ejectment petition was contested and the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties was denied. It was asserted that the respondent is a tenant of Puran Chand, who alone has a right to file this petition. All other averments made in the application were denied. The application was also contested on the ground that the same was neither signed nor verified by the petitioner and that Surinder Singh Babara has not given any power of attorney to Raj Kumar.

4. After the filing of replication, from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA

2. Whether the application has been verified, signed and instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the petitioner? OPA

3. Whether the respondent is tenant under Puran Chand in the demised premises? OPR

4. Whether the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPA

5. Whether any amount in excess of rent actually due from the respondent has been realised by the petitioner ? If so its effect? OPR

6. Whether the respondent is guilty of such acts which amounts to nuisance to the occupiers of the adjoining building and petitioner? If so its effect? OPA

7. Relief.

5. Parties had led evidence and after taking the same into consideration, the Rent Controller, Amritsar decided issue Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of the petitioner holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Issue No. 2 was held to be redundant as the same being superfluous needs no consideration and adjudication. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the petitioner. While deciding issue No. 5, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent had spent a sum of Rs. 927-20P on the repairs of the demised premises, which had not been adjusted and after observing this relegated the respondent to seek his remedy to recover this amount in accordance with law. Issue No. 6 was riot pressed and, therefore, decided against the petitioner. The result was that the ejectment application was allowed. The Appellate Authority, Amritsar reversed the findings in relation to issue No. 4, with the result that the ejectment application was dismissed.

6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that two experts were produced before the Courts below by the parties. While the petitioner had produced Shri Harbans Singh as a AW1, the respondent had examined Sh. S.C. Vermani as RW3. No doubt, both the experts have given divergent opinion about the condition of the property in dispute at the time when the matter came up for adjudication with Harbans Singh coming to the conclusion that the property was unfit and unsafe for human habitation while S.C. Vermani RW3 took the position, which is diametrically opposite to the view taken by Har