Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3011 (PNJ)

Nathi Ram v. Pradeep Bansal

2016-10-21

SURINDER GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Surinder Gupta, J. Respondent-Pradeep Bansal sought ejectment of the revision petitioner from demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent; unfit and unsafe condition of the building for human habitation; and for his personal bona fide necessity. 2. The rent as assessed by learned Rent Controller was paid, as such, plea of landlord-respondent seeking ejectment on the ground of nonpayment of rent was discarded. 3. The demised premises was held as unfit and unsafe for human habitation and requirement of the demised premises for his personal necessity by the landlord-respondent was held to be genuine and revision petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises. Not satisfied, he filed appeal, which was dismissed by Appellate Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has argued that in the ejectment petition, respondent-landlord has not pleaded ingredients as per Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. On perusal of orders passed by learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, it transpires that neither this plea was raised before the Rent Controller nor before the Appellate Authority and no evidence was produced to prove that landlord-respondent had vacated or is in occupation of any other shop. 5. The demised premises was also ordered to be ejected on the ground that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Provisions of Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 are not applicable when ejectment is sought on this ground. Appellate Authority while reaching conclusion that demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, has referred to statement of RW-1 Hari Singh examined by revision-petitioner and observed in para 15 as follows:- "15. After having heard both sides, I find no merit in any of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/tenant. The respondent/landlord examined Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, Building Expert as PW3. He has submitted his report Ex. PA wherein it is mentioned that he has inspected the shop on 14.4.2014 and observed that the shop is in pitty condition. The roof is damaged at many places and there are many cracks on the top of the roof. He has estimated that the shop may be more than 60 years old and its life has automatically expired. The lime mortar has lost its strength and coming out from the joint of the wall. The roof is damaged at many places and there are many cracks on the top of the roof. He has estimated that the shop may be more than 60 years old and its life has automatically expired. The lime mortar has lost its strength and coming out from the joint of the wall. The inside wall and the roof ceiling have been covered with ply and paints to hide the cracks etc. In the North wall of the demised shop there was a gap in the false ceiling and the inside portion of the wall and the cracks in the inside portion of the wall were visible in the wall. The wooden battens of the roof and the stone slab have become weak and are damaged. The floor of the shop is also not in good condition and the building is beyond repair. The appellant/tenant has examined no Expert to rebut the evidence of the Expert led by the respondent/landlord. RW-1 Hari Singh, the own witness of the appellant/tenant has admitted in his affidavit Ex.RW1/A tendered in evidence that appellant is tenant in the demised shop for the last 40 years. RW-1 Hari Singh has further admitted that the bricks of the demised shop has caught Reh and the Reh is falling from the bricks, therefore, the ply has been affixed on the wall. He has not denied that the roof of the demised shop has developed cracks. He has further stated that anything may happen in future. RW-2 Nathi, appellant-tenant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that the shop in his possession is 40 years old. The photographs placed on file also indicate that the plaster over the wall has left its place. Even the floor has developed cracks at several places. There is seepage in the roof and the battens have been affixed to support the roof. The report of the Building Expert cannot be discarded merely on the allegations that he was biased unless some material is brought on file to prove such allegations. Thus, from the evidence on file it stands proved that the shop has outlived its life and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation." 6. The report of the Building Expert cannot be discarded merely on the allegations that he was biased unless some material is brought on file to prove such allegations. Thus, from the evidence on file it stands proved that the shop has outlived its life and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation." 6. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner could not point out that observations made by Appellate Authority and also by Rent Controller regarding the unfit and unsafe condition of the building for human habitation, are not based on evidence on record and to assail above findings of Rent Controller. I find no legal or factual infirmity in the ejectment order passed by Rent Controller, affirmed by Appellate Authority, calling for any interference. 7. The scope of interference in revision petition is very limited as observed by Apex Court in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Dilbahar Singh, 2014(9) SCC 78 , which reads as follows:- "We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself of correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself of correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity." 8. This revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.