Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2037 (PNJ)

Mittal Trading Co. v. Mohan Lal

2008-12-04

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2008
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Two Courts below have held that building is about 90/95 years old and is made of mud mortar and nanakshahi bricks. The landlord has produced the report of Civil Engineer. He also examined PW-6 Vijay Kumar, Photographer. He has proved photographs Exs.AW6/1 to AW6/46. Two Courts below have given concurrent findings that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Courts took into consideration the fact that no expert has been examined by the tenants. Having said so, brief facts of the case are noticed as under:- 2. One Girdhari Lal Makkar had instituted the eviction petition who is now being represented by Mohan Lal. It was stated that he was owner of Shop No.458/6 and petitioner-tenants were tenant only in hind room of the second storey. The property was sold by Nirmla Devi to Janak Dulari and after the death of Janak Dulari, Girdhari Lal became owner of the property by virtue of will executed by Janak Dulari. It was stated that M/s Mittal Trading Company is owned by three partners, namely, Kamal Kumar, Pushpa Wati and Seema. They were impleaded in the eviction petition as respondents No.2 to 4. In the eviction petition three grounds were taken, firstly that the tenants were in arrears of rent w.e.f. 5.6.1989; secondly that the landlord has locked the stair case leading to hind room on the second storey and the tenants have shifted their business to Delhi and ceased to occupy the demised premises and further demised premises were required by the landlord for the business of his son and lastly the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 3. A written statement was filed, in which relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. It was stated that Nirmala Devi was owner and landlord of the property and Girdhari Lal Makkar has no concern with the property. Replication was filed, in which averments made in the written statement were denied and that of the eviction petition were reiterated. 4. Landlord examined eight witnesses which included AW-6 Vijay Kumar, Photographer and AW-7 M.R.Anand, Civil Engineer. As stated earlier, sale deed Ex.AW8/2 was duly proved. Therefore, it was rightly held by the Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant is established. Regarding putting lock on the stair case and causing nuisance, issue was decided against the landlord. 4. Landlord examined eight witnesses which included AW-6 Vijay Kumar, Photographer and AW-7 M.R.Anand, Civil Engineer. As stated earlier, sale deed Ex.AW8/2 was duly proved. Therefore, it was rightly held by the Rent Controller that the relationship of landlord and tenant is established. Regarding putting lock on the stair case and causing nuisance, issue was decided against the landlord. The ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and it required reconstruction from the foundation level, was upheld. Rent Controller further held that in view of the tender made by the tenants, ground that the tenants were in arrears of rent, is not available to the landlord. Ground of personal necessity was also decided against the landlord. As discussed earlier, two Courts below have given concurrent finding that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, taking into consideration the evidence of the Photographer and the Civil Engineer. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the revision petition is dismissed.