Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1313 (PNJ)

Naunihal Singh v. Amarjit Singh

2009-08-04

SURYA KANT

body2009
JudgmentJudgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition is directed by the petitioner- tenant against the order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Appellate Authority, Amritsar whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-landlords against the judgment dated 30.7.2002 of the Rent Controller, Tarn Taran, has been allowed and while accepting the ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , the petitioner-tenant has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises. 2. ****** 3. The premises in dispute is a double storey house located in Tarn Taran. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the said house in the year 1981. The respondent-landlords sought the petitioners eviction on the grounds that :- (i) he is in arrears of rent @ Rs. 500/- per month with effect from 1.8.1993 to 30.9.1997; (ii) the petitioner has sub-let the premises to proforma respondent No. 4; and (iii) the demised premises is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on all the three counts. Aggrieved, the respondent-landlords preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the Appellate Authority vide its impugned judgment dated 12.9.2007. The Appellate Authority though has upheld the finding of the Rent Controller that the rate of rent is Rs. 150/- per month but the petitioner- tenant neither proved payment nor tendered the arrears of rent despite an opportunity given. The Appellate Authority has further found that the demised premises is more than 200 years old; a major portion of it has fallen down and the same is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Consequently, the ejectment application has been accepted. 4. Notice of motion was issued and the records were sent for. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the records perused. 5. Counsel for the petitioner urges that the respondent-landlords has not approached the court with clean hands and falsely demanded rent @ Rs. 500/-, which has been found to be Rs. 150/- per month only. He argues that the respondent-landlords have been claiming arrears of rent even for the period for which the petitioners had already tendered the same before the Rent Controller and, thus, their conduct disentitles them to seek ejectment. 500/-, which has been found to be Rs. 150/- per month only. He argues that the respondent-landlords have been claiming arrears of rent even for the period for which the petitioners had already tendered the same before the Rent Controller and, thus, their conduct disentitles them to seek ejectment. As regards the second ground for eviction, namely, that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, learned counsel contends that the finding of the Appellate Authority is primarily based upon the report of the building expert who had an inclination to submit the report in favour of the party hiring his services. Learned counsel urges that such a report cannot be relied upon to order ejectment. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents submits that even after holding that the rate of rent is Rs. 150/- per month, the Appellate Authority has returned a categoric finding that the petitioner failed to tender the arrears of rent even at that rate. He maintains that there is overwhelming evidence on record comprising the photographs, report of the building expert and the petitioner-tenants own implied admission, to prove that the premises has outlived its life and utility and is now unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 7. It may be true that the respondents have failed to prove the increase in rent being Rs. 500/- per month but fact of the matter is that the petitioner has also failed to prove the payment or tender the entire arrears of rent even @ Rs. 150/- per month. The Appellate Authority has taken into account the details of each tender of arrears of rent by the petitioner in other eviction petitions and yet the petitioner has not been able to prove payment thereof. 8. Be that as it may, in my considered view, the order under challenge passed by the Appellate Authority deserves to be upheld even on the ground that the building is totally unsafe and unfit for human habitation. If one sees the photographs, coupled with the report of the building expert, it clearly emerges that the building is more than 200 years old and is built of Nanakshahi bricks, with mud and mortar. The photographs clearly suggest that major portion of the building has already fallen down though a small portion which is in occupation of the petitioner-tenant, might be still maintained. The photographs clearly suggest that major portion of the building has already fallen down though a small portion which is in occupation of the petitioner-tenant, might be still maintained. The fact of the matter is that the let out portion being an integral part of the entire building, the condition of the entire building as a composite unit has to be seen. The respondent-landlords have produced a building expert who visited the premises and then prepared the report duly supported with photographs. The heaps of malba are visible in the photographs; so is the dilapidated condition of the girders and walls. The fact that a portion has fallen down, is also clearly visible. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the small portion of the premises, which is in occupation of the petitioner, can be kept intact even if the remainder of the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The findings returned by the Appellate Authority on the second plea are based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record, which has not been even referred to by the Rent Controller. 9. No ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is, therefore, made out. 10. Dismissed. 11. However, the petitioner-tenant is permitted to vacate the premises by 30th November, 2009 subject to payment of advance rent. Petition dismissed.