Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1558 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar v. Rishi Kumar

2009-09-03

SURYA KANT

body2009
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This revision petition is preferred by the tenant against whom an eviction order dated 28.9.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal, has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Kaithal, vide its order dated 11.5.2009. The Courts below have ordered for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the tenanted premises has now become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.150/- in the demised premises comprising part of the ground floor of a big building situated at Sarafa Bagar, Kaithal. The respondent-landlords sought eviction of the petitioner, inter-alia, on the grounds that: (i) he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.10.1997; (ii) the premises is in dilapidated condition and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation; (iii) the tenant has changed the user of the premises as it was given for running the business of general store, but he is using it as a Godown. The site plan of the entire building, prepared on 27.1.1999, was appended with the eviction petition. 3. The petitioner-tenant contested the eviction petition and denied the allegations that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or he has changed the user. He, however, tendered the arrears of rent at the admitted rate of Rs.150/- per month. 4. Since the petitioner-tenant tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, the first ground of eviction did not survive. The contentions issue between the parties pertained to fitness of the building for human habitation. In order to prove that the premises is unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the attorney of the respondents and one of their family member, Vinod Kumar appeared in the witness box (PW2) and also examined Rakesh Kumar (PW1) to prove the site plan dated 27.1.1999 already appended with the eviction petition as Ex.P-1. Gurvinder Kumar (PW3) was produced to prove his report (Ex.PA/3), site plan (Ex.A4) and photographs (Ex.A6 to A8). 5. As against it, the petitioner-tenant examined one Raghbir Batra (RW1), Building Expert Bal Kishan (RW2) who proved his report (Ex.R1) and site plan (R2) and the photographs (Ex.R3 to R5). The petitioner-tenant also entered in the witness box (RW3). 6. Gurvinder Kumar (PW3) was produced to prove his report (Ex.PA/3), site plan (Ex.A4) and photographs (Ex.A6 to A8). 5. As against it, the petitioner-tenant examined one Raghbir Batra (RW1), Building Expert Bal Kishan (RW2) who proved his report (Ex.R1) and site plan (R2) and the photographs (Ex.R3 to R5). The petitioner-tenant also entered in the witness box (RW3). 6. After considering the above referred evidence, the Rent Controller found that the demised premises is an integral part of the main building, a part of which has already fallen down. The photographs placed on record by both sides clearly suggest that the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that it was not being used for running a general store also. The Rent Controller took notice of the photographs showing cracks in the building. The Rent Controller further found that there was no electricity consumption and the floor level of the shop was also lower than the main street and the same was no longer being used as a shop by the petitioner. The Rent Controller observed that the entire building is presumed to have been constructed at the same time and it has out-lived its life and utility, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on both counts i.e. the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation as well as for the change of user. 7. The petitioner went in appeal, but the same has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Kaithal, vide its order dated 11.5.2009, after holding that : (i) the building is not less than 80 years old; (ii) a part of the building has already fallen down; (iii) there are cracks in the walls of the remaining building; (iv) even as per the Experts report (Ex.R1) relied upon by the tenant, the building was constructed with small bricks, mud and mortar and the mud mortar after such a long period has lost its adhesive powers and the bricks could not remain intact; (v) the plaster of the walls seems to have been pealed off at certain places, and (vi) the wooden apertures have already given way as is visible from the photographs Ex.A-6 & A-7. 8. Still aggrieved, the tenant has approached this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. 8. Still aggrieved, the tenant has approached this Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders. During the course of hearing and on a query, counsel for the petitioner has produced some of the photographs relied upon by the petitioner before the Courts below. These photographs are taken on record. 10. On a bare perusal of the photographs, there remains no doubt whatsoever that the premises is in a dilapidated condition and has out lived its utility. The cracks in the walls are visible; the plaster has fallen down; the building appears to be quite old and it being an admitted fact that a part of the main building has already fallen down, the mere maintenance of a small portion of the building occupied by the petitioner cannot hold or stablize the entire building, especially when the let out portion is integrated with the main building. No interference in a concurrent finding of fact based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record by the Courts below, is, therefore, called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition stands dismissed, accordingly.