The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on conflicting evidence to determine the safety and fitness of the demised premises under the grounds for eviction, as provided in section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction Act), 1973.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'tenant') against the concurrent findings recorded by both the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, vide orders dated 04.12.2015 and 16.02.2018, respectively.

2. The respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'landlord') filed a petition u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction Act), 1973, seeking eviction of the tenant from a Godown (hereinafter called 'demised premises') situated at Nai Mandi, Narnaul. The pleaded case of the landlord may be noticed as thus:-

That he had rented out the demised premises to the tenant vide Rent Agreement dated 06.09.1986, at a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Rent was thereafter, enhanced with mutual consent in May 1991, October 1996, October 2001 and finally it was enhanced to Rs.800/- p.m. on 06.11.2007. The status of the tenant was that of a statutory tenant, since no fair rent had been agreed upon between the parties, hence, Rs.800/- p.m. was the statutory rent. The demised premises had been rendered unfit and unsafe on account of the acts of the tenant who had removed stone slabs and wooden battons. Besides this, the landlord also alleged that the tenant had not been paying the rent in time. Even though, he had been requested the tenant time and again to handover the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord, so that he could bring down the demised premises since it was in a dilapidated condition and raise a new construction, however, the tenant had flatly refused to do so.

3. On being put to notice, the tenant did not deny that the demised premises was taken on rent vide Rent Note dated 06.09.1986 and that presently he was paying a rent of Rs.800/- p.m., however, he asserted that the rent which was being paid by him, was the agreed fair rent between the parties. He denied that the demised premises was in a dilapidated condition and thus, unfit for human habitation. He further denied that he had removed wooden battens, slabs etc., as alleged by the landlord. Rather, he submitted that the demised premises was in the same condition, as it was, when it was taken on rent in the year 1986.

4. On the basis of the pleadings and other evidence led, the Rent Controller allowed the rent petition of the landlord and decreed it with costs by holding him entitled to get the vacant possession of the disputed godown/demised premises, from the tenant within two months of its order. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority by the tenant was also dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant inter alia contended that the landlord miserably failed to prove his case by way of any cogent evidence that the demised premises had become unfit for human habitation and was in a dilapidated condition. It was submitted that there were other tenants, who were residing on the upper floors of the demised premises and qua them ejection had been sought by the landlord on grounds of personal necessity. Hence, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the landlord by both the Courts below, which they, however, erred in not doing. He further submitted that there was no evidence on record that it was on account of any acts of the tenant that the demised premises had been damaged. Learned counsel submitted that no doubt a local commissioner was appointed by the Court below, who after inspection of the demised premises, gave a report (Ex.P1) that the place was unsafe and unfit, however, both the Courts below, ignored the evidence of RW-2/ P.R. Gupta, a building expert, who after inspecting the demised premises, submitted his report Ex.RW2/B, which was at complete variance with that of the local commissioner. Learned counsel while drawing the attention of the Court to the report of RW-2, submitted that he had categorically reported that the condition of the demised premises, was good and it was fit for human habitation. Learned counsel,