Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1213 (PNJ)

Bimla Devi v. Sultani Mal Harnam Dass

2006-03-22

HEMANT GUPTA

body2006
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the eviction order passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, 2. The respondent landlord sought the ejectment of the petitioner herein, on the ground that the building, the part of which is let out to the petitioner, is an old one as it was kucha built in 1904-05 and that it has outlived its life. The wall AB shown in the plan has fallen down. It is also pointed out that the roof of the room CD has fallen down and the latrine/toilet on the first floor and under the control of the landlord has become unsafe. The walls have developed cracks and thus, the premises in question have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the landlord wants to rebuild the same after eviction of the tenant. 3. To support such allegations of the factum of building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the landlord examined AW Amarjit Aggarwal, building expert and also examined AW4 Virender Shukla, Advocate, Local Commissioner, who inspected the premises on 30.9.1988 apart from the landlord himself appearing as his own witness. To controvert the evidence of the landlord in respect of the nature of the building, the tenant examined RW5 Kalyan Singh, another building expert and also examined himself. 4. The learned Rent Controller, dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that there is no evidence that the entire building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. From the report of the expert produced by the tenant, it was inferred that the damage to the kucha wall is quite minor and negligible and the damage to the part of the roof is the outcome and is consequent upon the settlement of the wall which was kucha. It was concluded that the damage is a localised one and effected by rainfall because of jungle/jhari development along the walls in the adjacent vacant plot. It was also found that this damage required reconstruction of the wall CD only. However, the learned Appellate Authority considered the reports furnished by the respective experts produced by the parties as well as that of the Local Commissioner, examined as AW4 and passed an order of ejectment. 5. It was also found that this damage required reconstruction of the wall CD only. However, the learned Appellate Authority considered the reports furnished by the respective experts produced by the parties as well as that of the Local Commissioner, examined as AW4 and passed an order of ejectment. 5. The Local Commissioner has prepared a site plan marked as Annexure-C in which he has given detailed condition of the building. He has reported that the roof of the disputed portion shown in green at points C and D has bended and has developed cracks. The walls A to B (sic) in the site plan has collapsed and the latrine shown at point G on the first floor has considerably bended. Some cracks developed in the walls are visible. It may be noticed that the premises reflected by the Local Commissioner at points C and D are in possession of the tenant, whereas the wall AB is partly in possession of the tenant and partly in possession of the landlord. The latrine shown at point G was in possession of the landlord, which has been found to have fallen down as per the report of RW5 Kalyan Singh. The report of the Local Commissioner further states that roofs of the shop, at point F in possession of the tenant and the one shown at point G in possession of the landlord has, collapsed. The roof at point H in possession of the landlord has bended and has cracks. The Local Commissioner has pointed out that front portion of the disputed shop at point LMNKSPU does not seem to be damaged considerably. 6. A perusal of the said site plan would show that the said sold portion is only one khan out of the five khans of construction. The report of the Local Commissioner also does not show any damage to shop in possession of the landlord situated on the other side of the Railway road. A perusal of the said report leaves no manner of doubt that out of five khans, three khans are in much dilapidated condition. In fact, a perusal of photographs Ex.A.6 and A.9 leaves no manner of doubt about the dilapidated condition of the building. A big hole can be seen in the photograph Exhibit A.9, whereas in photograph Exhibit A.7, the wall can the seen to have developed massive cracks. In fact, a perusal of photographs Ex.A.6 and A.9 leaves no manner of doubt about the dilapidated condition of the building. A big hole can be seen in the photograph Exhibit A.9, whereas in photograph Exhibit A.7, the wall can the seen to have developed massive cracks. Since the report reflects that the major portion of the building is in dilapidated condition, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority that it is the entire building, which is in a dilapidated condition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra and Shadi Singh v. Rakha (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 1 63 ( S.C.), to contend t hat unless the entire building is i n such a condition, which requires reconstruction, the tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted. 8. Keeping in view the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment as well, 1 do not find that the finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court suffers from any patent illegality of irregularity, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 9. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. 10. However, the, ejectment order shall not be executed for a period of one month from today.