The judgment establishes the importance of expert evidence and witness testimonies in determining the condition of premises for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

S.S.Sudhalkar, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against whom eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller and the same was affirmed by the appellant authority. The eviction was sought by the respondent-Landlord on the following grounds:

(i) Non-payment of rent.

(ii) Premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(iii) respondent has committed such acts which have materially diminished the value and utility of the shop in dispute.

2. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the grounds of premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the petitioners having materially diminished the value and utility of the premises. The appellate authority maintained the finding regarding the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation though it reversed the finding regarding diminishing the value and utility of the premises by the respondent. Ultimately it maintained the order of eviction against which this revision has been filed as stated above.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has tried to show that the leased out part of the premises which can be termed as a premises (premises in question) has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation though the said may be the position regarding the other part of the building in which the premises are situated. The premises in question consists of two rooms in a building which is double storeyed having three shops and a chaubara over all the three shops. The ground floor portion on which the shops are situated consists of two rooms. The respondents have produced the sketch of the building at Ex.A-2. The tenant witness has also produced sketch at Ex.R1. So far as situation of the rooms is concerned, there is no dispute regarding the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the premises in question are in sound position while learned counsel for the respondent argued that the whole building including the premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Mr. Jyoti Saroop Sehgal, Advocate (RWI) who was appointed as Local Commissioner has deposed while appearing as RWI that he visited the spot as per direction of the court on 7.8.96 in the presence of the parties and other persons who are mentioned in the memo attached with the report. He went on the roof through the residential portion, again said through the stair case adjoining the next shop on the main road. It is further stated by him in his deposition that it was a rainy day when he visited the spot in question. He detected malba which was about one foot in height and included fresh tiles, wooden batten etc. and there was no outlet of water to flow on the road and the rainy water was concentrating through the malba in the disputed shop.

6. RWI has further stated in his deposition that he also visited the premises in question which is a shop. The water had accumulated on the roof and was trickling down in the shop in question and the general goods of the respondent (present petitioner) were lying in a notch potch condition. The respondent-tenant collected the goods to save them from rainy water. He prepared his report which is Ex. R1, presence sheet Ex. R2 and site plan Ex, R3. The photographs taken by the photographer are Mark A to Mark F.

7. So far as the position of the premises in question so as to treat the same unfit and unsafe for human habitation is concerned, this witness (RWI) has not thrown any light in his examination-in-chief. He has stated in his -examination that the entire building is in dilapidated condition. In his cross-examination he has further stated that it is wrong that he saw any collapsed portion or cracked portion of the building. In the end he has stated that it is wrong to suggest that the entire building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that it is incorrect that the building can collapse at any time. He has not drawn any distinction bet