Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2685 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh v. Janak Dulari

2006-07-11

P.S.PATWALIA

body2006
Judgment P.S.Patwalia, J. 1. The present revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Barnala affirmed by the order of the appellate authority whereby the eviction of the petitioner-tenant has been ordered on the ground that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 2. To prove his case, the landlord had examined Dev Raj Gupta retired S.D.O. from the PWD (B&R) Department who was working as Consultant Engineer and Building Expert and who had examined the shop and submitted his report. As against that, the tenant examined one Bir Davinder Pal a Civil Engineer who stated that he had experience of Civil Engineering and Building Construction Project for more than 13 years. Besides this, both the landlord and tenant also appeared as their own witnesses in support of their respective cases. 3. The trial Court while considering as to whether or not the shop in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, noted the deposition of Shri Dev Raj Gupta as hereunder: "This witness, being expert further has deposed that he handled and supervised numerous building works and complexes including designing construction and maintenance works, then during this said tenure, he appeared being building expert in different Courts of Patiala and Sangrur districts during the last 9 years in numerous cases and has sufficient experience in the field of said business. This witness further has deposed that he as per permission of the Court, inspected the demised shop situated at Dhanoula road, Barnala on 3.2.2001 in the presence of both the parties. This witness further has deposed that he inspected the shop Mark-A depicted in the site plan from each and every angle and prepared rough plan and rough notes pertaining to shop in its present position. Then he prepared the fair plan, notes and report in his office at Nabha. The shop in dispute being inspected by him on 16.2.2001 seemed to be about 50-52 years old, from the type of construction and quality of material used for its construction. The shop inspected by him, being maintained poorly by the respondent also looked much older than its age, as per observation detailed in his report Ex.A1, supported by site plan Ex.A2 bearing his signatures. The shop inspected by him, being maintained poorly by the respondent also looked much older than its age, as per observation detailed in his report Ex.A1, supported by site plan Ex.A2 bearing his signatures. This witness has further deposed that he in view of his detailed report is of considered view that the shop in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, because it is reached at the stage, from where it cannot be made fit for human habitation by any extent of repair as it requires reconstruction afresh." 4. The report submitted by Shri Gupta was given after a detailed inspection which is also noted by the trial Court as hereunder: "The report Ex. A 1 of PW 1 Dev Raj Gupta, goes to reveal that the shop in dispute was inspected with the help of measuring tape, iron needle sharp iron blade, plumbob, cotton cord, small hammer, wooden stick, ladder etc., by the said witness, who thereafter, prepared the said report on 15.2.2001, in his office, at Nabha, by destroying the rough plan and rough notes prepared by him, at the time of inspection of the shop in dispute. The said witness opined that shop in dispute inspected by him was appeared to be 50-52 years old, from its construction and quality of material, used for its construction. This witness in his detailed report has opined that shop in dispute is not fit for human habitation or for running any business in it." 5. On the other hand, the trial Court came to the conclusion that report given by Bir Devinder Pal produced by the tenant was not in detail, the relevant observations are as hereunder: "Whereas the report Ex. RW1/A of Bir Devinder Pal RW-1, examined by the respondent, is not in detail to that of the report of PW-1 Dev Raj Gupta, referred herein above. RW-1 Bir Devinder Pal has opined vide his report that shop in dispute can beused for another 20-25 years with minor repairs and there is no danger to the shop and is quite fit for human habitation, who while facing the cross-examination has admitted that the report Ex- R1/A is first opinion, regarding condition of this building." 6. RW-1 Bir Devinder Pal has opined vide his report that shop in dispute can beused for another 20-25 years with minor repairs and there is no danger to the shop and is quite fit for human habitation, who while facing the cross-examination has admitted that the report Ex- R1/A is first opinion, regarding condition of this building." 6. After examining the report and evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that the petitioner-landlord had established that the shop in dispute was not unsafe and unfit for human habitation or for running any business. 7. In appeal, the appellant authority found on going through the report of Shri Dev Raj Gupta as hereunder. "............going through this report it reflects that the walls are naked from outside and are full of dampness and eastern wall of the shop is out of plumb and similarly front wall of the shop is also bulged out due to old age and penetration of rain water and has discovered dimension which has effected the mud mortar of brick masonry of walls from the front and back at the corner has disintegrated. Further more regarding the roof it has been held that there are two wooden beams on the roof which are made of wooden battens and has held that the brick tiles of the roof are dislocated at the joints and wooden battens are loosened at their end having been eaten by termites and white ants and were in sagged condition and appear to be hollow sound when struck with wooden stick and that out of the same 70% wooden battens have been badly eaten by termite and white ants and there is leakage of the roof and has even termed the roof as unfit and unsafe and similarly regarding the terrace has held it to be depressed in the middle and the rain water is being absorbed by the Katcha roof and there was wild grass grown on the roof and has held that the brick floor of the shop was full of dampness and was uneven and in his conclusion has held that the same was unfit and unsafe for human habitation." 8. It was, therefore, concluded by the appellate authority as hereunder :- "It cannot be lost site of the fact that the entire roof is of wooden beams and battens and thus establishes beyond any doubt as to likelihood of the age of the building which supports the contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondent as well as expert opinion, besides the fact that with this age of construction the wooden roof certainly loses its character and strength together with the fact that both the experts in their respective reports have been established the fact as to the dampness as well as leakage of rain water further erodes the stand of the tenant-appellant that premises was in fit state of condition. The learned Rent Controller has adequately considered the respective submissions and evidence and has correctly appreciated the same on the record. That in view of the aforegoing discussions the findings of the trial Court issue No. 1 as such upheld." 9. On a consideration of the case, it is apparent that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The walls are damped and even not plastered (naked). The front wall of the shop is bulging out due to old age and penetration of rain water making it very weak. The roof is made of wooden beams/battens alongwith brick tiles. The wooden battens are loosened at the end and eaten by termites and white ants and appeared to be hollow when struck with a wooden batten. The brick tiles of the roof are also loosened. The terrace is depressed in the middle and rain water is being absorbed by the Katcha roof. There is wild grass on the roof. Even the brick floor of the shop is damp and uneven. 10. I, therefore, concur that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the building is completely unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The findings are well reasoned and based on evidence produced on record. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere in the orders made by the learned Rent Controller or the appellate authority. 11. The present revision petition, is therefore, dismissed.