A building cannot be declared unsafe or unfit for human habitation under the Rent Control Act based solely on its age or traditional building materials; such a finding requires substantive, cogent evidence of structural deterioration verified by physical inspection, which was lacking in the present case.

-.-

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present consolidated order shall govern the adjudication of the above-captioned revision petitions, all of which arise from a substantially identical factual and legal framework. In view of the commonality of parties, the overlapping nature of the issues involved, and the substantially similar challenge raised to the impugned orders and judgments, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, these revision petitions are being taken up and disposed of by way of a common judgment in the interest of judicial propriety, procedural economy, and to ensure consistency and uniformity in adjudication.

2. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties in all the revision petitions, the factual matrix relevant for the purposes of the present consolidated adjudication has been extracted from the record of one of the connected revision petitions, as the same furnishes a comprehensive, accurate, and representative account of the material facts. Although certain issues raised in the individual revision petitions may vary in their particulars, the facts so noticed are being adopted as the foundational factual backdrop for the purposes of adjudicating the present batch of matters, so as to facilitate a coherent, consistent, and comprehensive determination.

3. The present revision petitions arise out of eviction petitions instituted by the respondent-landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking eviction of the petitioners from the premises in dispute, primarily on the grounds of non-payment of rent and on the plea that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration in the present matters, the same are being adjudicated and disposed of through this common judgment.

3.1. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the facts are being noticed as under:-

4. The case set up by the respondent-landlord before the learned Rent Controller was that the property in dispute originally belonged to him and that one Jawala Parshad had been permitted to occupy a portion thereof merely as a licensee/resident owing to longstanding family relations. It was pleaded that following the demise of Jawala Parshad in the year 1967, his widow, namely Mishri Devi, continued in possession of the premises as a tenant, and subsequently the entire premises was let out to her on a monthly rent of `20/-, which was later enhanced to `50/- per month. It was further averred that upon the death of Mishri Devi, the present petitioners, being her grandsons, continued in possession of the premises as tenants under the respondent-landlord.

5. The respondent-landlord, alleging default in payment of rent and further asserting that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, instituted eviction petitions against the petitioners. The petitioners contested the proceedings and specifically denied the existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant. Their categorical stand was that Jawala Parshad had been residing in the premises since the year 1945 and that the property had allegedly been orally gifted to hi