Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1535 (PNJ)

Ajit Singh v. Bhagsudhi Amar Trust

2007-08-23

H.S.BHALLA

body2007
Judgment H.S.Bhalla, J. 1. Having lost battle before the Courts below, the petitioner- tenant has knocked at the door of this Court by filing the instant revision petition praying for acceptance of the same and setting aside the judgments passed by the Courts below recording concurrent findings therein on that point that khokha in question was held to be in dilapidated condition being unfit for human habitation thereby directing the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the site in dispute to the landlord within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order. 2. The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent-landlord is owner of khokha and site underneath and the petitioner is tenant under him on payment of Rs. 50/- per month. The ejectment of the tenant has been sought inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner- tenant has not paid rent with effect from 1.5.1995 till the filing of the petition; that khokha in dispute is in dilapidated condition and is likely to collapse at any time and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 3. The petitioner-tenant filed reply denying the pleas taken up by the landlord in his petition and raised a preliminary objection that the application is not maintainable and that the respondent-landlord has suppressed the material facts from the Court. On merits, relationship between the parties was admitted, but the remaining averments were denied, it has been pointed out that he had been regularly paying the rent to the landlord and now he is depositing the rent in the court in order to avoid ejectment with the condition to refund the same at the time of final disposal of the petition. It has been denied that khokha is in dilapidated condition. Finally, it has been prayed that the petition filed by the landlord be dismissed. 4. The learned Rent Controller, after framing issues on the pleadings of the parties and evaluating the material available on the record, recorded a finding that the tenant is not in arrears of rent, but the landlord-respondent has succeeded in proving issue No. 2 that the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and on this ground, the tenant has been directed to evict the demised premises within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller, the tenant filed appeal before the lower appellate authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.2007, affirming the finding recorded by the Rent Controller. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant was made by the courts below on the ground that the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Learned counsel has further contended that the courts below have committed a serious error by not taking into consideration this aspect of the matter that the petitioner tenant took only the land on lease on payment of Rs. 50/- per month from the landlord and he erected a wooden khokha thereon from his own expenses. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court towards this aspect of the matter that in the year 1983 the respondent-landlord tried to forcibly eject the petitioner-tenant from the khokha in question and he filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-landlord from dispossessing him forcibly from the shop-cum-wooden khokha in question. This aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by both the courts below by not citing the same in the judgment rendered by them. The contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner have to be examined minutely on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record of the case. 7. It has been established on the record of the case that the petitioner- tenant is not in arrears of rent and the point in issue was decided against the landlord and in favour of the tenant-petitioner. So far as the issue with regard to the demised premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation is concerned, the courts below have dealt with this issue comprehensively by discussing the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties. I have also gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and on the basis of which impugned judgments were passed by both the courts below as also the conclusions arrived at by them, which are the subject matter before this Court. The demised premises is a wooden khokha. I have also gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties and on the basis of which impugned judgments were passed by both the courts below as also the conclusions arrived at by them, which are the subject matter before this Court. The demised premises is a wooden khokha. As per the version of the respondent-landlord, the khokha is in dilapidated condition and is likely to collapse at any time. It is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It has also established on the record that the petitioner- tenant has installed a compressor, which creates vibration. In order to avoid collapse, the tenant-petitioner has fitted angle irons without the permission and consent of the landlord and the premises in question has become unsafe for human habitation. Shri Avtar Singh, who is a chief trustee and has filed the ejectment petition on behalf of the trust, has deposed about the physical condition of the premises and also placed on record report of the Expert Ex. A-3 and site plan prepared by him Ex. A-4. This witness has specifically deposed that 75% of the wood of the khokha has been eaten by the termites. In the affidavit, Ex. AW1/A, this witness has stated the wooden structure of the shop in dispute is in a dilapidated condition and is unsafe for human habitation. The learned Appellate Authority has not taken much note of the report submitted by the Expert as it was not specific and it did not contain all the details of the structure. Record further spells out that petitioner- tenant Ajit Singh stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and he admitted in his cross-examination that photograph, Ex. AX pertains to his shop. Compressor is fitted inside the shop and it is being run with 1.5 horse power motor. He has also admitted this fact that there is no foundation and the boundary wall of the shop and that he had covered the roof of the shop with a tarpaulin. Meaning thereby that, there may be some leakage otherwise, there was no question to put any tarpaulin on the roof of the khokha in dispute. The tenant himself has admitted this fact that be has placed one tarpaulin on the roof of khokha in dispute and in case it is removed, water can enter inside the khokha. Meaning thereby that, there may be some leakage otherwise, there was no question to put any tarpaulin on the roof of the khokha in dispute. The tenant himself has admitted this fact that be has placed one tarpaulin on the roof of khokha in dispute and in case it is removed, water can enter inside the khokha. He has also admitted this fact that in case no replacement of new wooden planks with old one is made, then the khokha will collapse. This admission on the part of the tenant and the condition of the khokha in question can also be gauged from the photograph Ex. AX, which clearly spells out that the roof was covered by tarpaulin as also there is a sign board on the khokha under the name and style of "Ajit Tyre Works, G.T. Road, Pathankot" and bricks are protruding out of the wall. All this clearly shows that the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is settled principle of law that where the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it is a ground for ejectment as per provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . In such like circumstances, both the courts below, to my mind, have rightly recorded a concurrent finding of fact keeping in view the oral as well as documentary evidence available on the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the strength of the evidence as discussed above as also the admission made by the tenant himself with regard to the condition of the khokha in question, one can easily draw a conclusion that the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The concurrent finding recorded by the courts below cannot at all, be said to be erroneous and/or contrary to the record and accordingly, it is affirmed and calls for no interference. 8. The concurrent finding recorded by the courts below cannot at all, be said to be erroneous and/or contrary to the record and accordingly, it is affirmed and calls for no interference. 8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that both the courts below ignored to take into consideration the factum of the passing of the decree in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner-tenant whereby the landlord was restrained from ejecting the petitioner from the shop-cum-wooden khokha is concerned, the same is not binding on the rights of the landlord thereby depriving him of taking vacant possession of the khokha in question particularly when the concurrent finding of fact with regard to the demised premises being unfit for human habitation has been established on the record of the case. That apart, the landlord would be seeking vacant possession of the premises in question on the basis of the judgments passed by the courts under the Rent Act and not on the basis of the decree dated 22.1.1985 passed in the case of Permanent Injunction filed by the petitioner-tenant whereby the landlord has been restrained from ejecting the tenant from the shop-cum-wooden khokha. The decree obtained by the petitioner-tenant in the suit for permanent injunction, to my mind, would not in any manner create any impediment in the way of the landlord at the time of taking vacant possession of the khokha in dispute. 9. In the light of what has been discussed above, I see no irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgments passed by the courts below. Resultantly, petition filed by the petitioner-tenant fails and is hereby dismissed. The petitioner-tenant is directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised shop to the landlord, within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order, failing which the landlord will be free to avail the remedy that may be available under the statute by filing execution petition before the concerned court. Petition dismissed.