The age of a building alone cannot justify eviction, and evidence regarding the nature of construction and damage is crucial in determining whether a property is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by Ram Avtar (hereinafter described as "the petitioner") directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Narnaul, dated 21.8.1984. The learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Rewari, dated 15.9.1980 and instead had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts are that the respondents had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the shop in dispute. The ground of eviction pressed in this Court was as to if the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondents pleaded that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and is more than 100 years old. It has outlived its life. Foundations have lost their strength. There are cracks in the wall. The other grounds of eviction though taken do not survive nor were pressed.

3. The petitioner contested the petition for eviction. It was denied that the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and recoded the evidence. The learned Rent Controller acted on the local inspection as well as the report of the Local Commissioner. In addition to that, evidence was perused and it was held that the suit property was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The eviction petition was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred. The learned Appellate Authority held that the shop in question was more than 100 years old. It was class II construction and had outlived its utility and life. Since Karris had been changed, it was held that part of the property had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was further recorded that it is not necessary for the landlord to wait till the building actually fall. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside and the appeal was allowed. The petitioner was granted two months time to vacate the property.

6. It is true that the building is old and it has transpired in evidence that it had been set up many years ago. But the age of the building by itself, though a relevant factor, cannot be the sole ground to conclude that the same has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It has to be proved by evidence as to what is the nature of the construction and damage caused thereto. It is common knowledge that some buildings are well maintained and despite being ancient looked better and rather more habitable than unkept and uninhabited recently constructed building. Same was the view expressed by this Court in the case of Narinder Nath v. Amaraj Singh, (2000-1)124 P.L.R. 62. It was held that merely because the building is old is no ground to conclude that it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The age of the building is only a relevant factor. In that view of the matter, the learned Appellate Authority was patently in error in recording that because the building is old it should be given undue importance.

7. In the present case, a Local Commissioner had been appointed by the learned Rent Controller. He was a Sub Divisional Engineer. He reported as under:-

" . . . . Both the parties were present at the spot. The following observations were made. 1. There were sort of three portions in the shop as shown in plan as A, B and C.

2. The three Nos. Karries seemed to be different than others in the block as shown C in the plan.

3. The minor patches of plaster seemed to be visible in all the portion.

4. The whole shop seemed to be quite old, but it did not appear to be unsafe."

8. It is crystal clear from the report of the Local Commissioner that he did not find the building to be unsafe. Interestingly, no objections were filed to the report of the Local Commissioner by the petitioner. When no objections are filed, ordinarily, unless there are cogent reasons to come to otherwise, the same should be accepted.