Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 21 (PNJ)

Darshan Kumar v. Manjit Kaur

2003-01-08

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Darshan Kumar-tenant has filed the present revision petition against the order passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority vide which he has been ordered to be ejected from the premises in question on the ground that the demised premises are in dilapidated condition and the same have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the shop in question vide Rent Note dated 13.10.1969 by one Shri Daulat Ram. On 15.3.1980, the said Daulat Ram sold the shop in question to the respondents-landlords, namely, Satnam Singh, Tarlochan Singh and Manjit Kaur. These landlords filed the present ejectment application against the petitioner on 9.6.1982 on the grounds of non-payment of rent, change of user and unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller vide its order dated 30.11.1984 passed the order of ejectment against the petitioner only on the ground that the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 13.2.1986, whereby the order of the learned Rent Controller was affirmed. 3. Both the Courts below, while passing the order of ejectment against the petitioner, have relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner appointed in the suit, filed by the petitioner himself against the respondents-landlords. The said Local Commissioner appeared in this case as AW-3 and proved the certified copy of his report, which is Ex. AW-3/1 made in the previous suit. According to this report, the demised premises are in dilapidated condition. Holes in roof of the shop in question were visible. Cracks in the wall were noticed. The Local Commissioner-AW3 in the cross-examination of his statement had stated that the entire water of the roof passes through the hole. In addition to the aforesaid report of the Local Commissioner and his statement, the Courts below have also relied upon the photographs Ex. AW4/1 to Ex. AW4/11 which reflect that walls of the demised premises are having cracks and the same are in dilapidated condition. In addition to the aforesaid report of the Local Commissioner and his statement, the Courts below have also relied upon the photographs Ex. AW4/1 to Ex. AW4/11 which reflect that walls of the demised premises are having cracks and the same are in dilapidated condition. AW6-Kundan Lal, who is a resident of the area has further corroborated the aforesaid facts and stated that the demised premises are in dilapidated condition and the walls which have been built with small bricks have developed cracks and are likely to fall at any time. AW7, Sectional Officer, Municipal Committee, Jandiala Guru also placed on record and proved that on the complaint made by an inhabitant, he went to see the building in question and found the shop in dilapidated condition and with the consultation of Municipal Engineer, a notice AW7/A was issued to the owners requiring them to either demolish the shop or repair the same because it was in a dilapidated condition. On the other hand, the petitioner-tenant did not appear in the witness box and he examined one Abhey Kumar, his brother as an Attorney. The witnesses examined by the petitioner-tenant are RW-3 Nirmal Kumar, RW4-Subh Kumar and RW1-Narinjan Kumar. The Courts below have observed that these witnesses were not aware about the factual position on the spot as they did not answer the material questions by showing their ignorance. The petitioner has also examined one Engineer as building expert as RW-5 to prove that the demised premises are in good condition without any defect, but the Courts below have not relied upon the statement of the said witness being an interested witness. The Courts below, after considering the evidence led by both the parties have come to the conclusion that the entire building which is old one and made from Nanak Shashi bricks, is in dilapidated condition as there are holes in the roof and cracks in the walls. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Shri Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently tried to persuade this Court that the findings recorded by the Courts below regarding the dilapidated condition of the demised premises is not a correct conclusion drawn from the evidence brought on the record. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Shri Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently tried to persuade this Court that the findings recorded by the Courts below regarding the dilapidated condition of the demised premises is not a correct conclusion drawn from the evidence brought on the record. In this regard, he referred to some part of the statement of AW-3, the Local Commissioner, where he had stated that he had not gone inside the shop in dispute and he cannot say whether inside the shop water leaks through the roof or not. He also pointed out that landlords had constructed a room over the roof of the shop in question due to which the condition of the shop has become dilapidated. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the part of the statement of AW-3 to which he has referred. In my opinion, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner. After going through the evidence on the record, I find no abrasion in the findings recorded by the Courts below and no different conclusion can be drawn from the evidence available on the record. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the shop in question is in dilapidated condition and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The said finding cannot be interfered by this Court in this Civil revision. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.