cr no.6001 of 2009.doc - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6001 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 14.12.2009 **** Ramesh Kumar Chopra and others . . . . Petitioners VS. Ved Parkash . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. A.P. Jagga, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT, J. CM No.24398-CII of 2009 The prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 163 days in refiling the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed subject to just exceptions and the delay of 163 days in refiling the Civil Revision is hereby condoned. CM stands disposed of. CR No.6001 of 2009 1. This revision petition is directed by the tenants who have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises comprising a shop consisting of three khans and verandah, by the Rent Controller, Ferozepur vide order dated 28.04.2005 which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Ferozpur vide the impugned judgement dated 05th December, 2008. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction At, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), inter alia, cr no.6001 of 2009.doc - 2 - averring that late Udho Das Dhawan was the owner-cum-landlord of the shop consisting of three khans (three parts) and a verandah in front, situated in Purana Bazar, Ferozepur City. After the death of Udho Das Dhawan his estate including the shop in dispute was inherited by his two sons, namely, Badri Das Dhawan and M.L. Dhawan. M.L. Dhawan had died in the year 1965 leaving behind his widow and six sons. While Badri Das Dhawan passed away in the year 1985. It was further averred that Badri Das Dhawan used to realize rent from Kundan Lal – the tenant to whom the demised premised was let out by late Udho Das Dhawan and thus there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between Badri Das Dhawan and Kundan Lal. The respondent is son of Badri Das Dhawan who has also been realizing monthly rent of Rs.40/- from the tenant after the death of his father in the year 1985. 2. The tenant-Kundan Lal died on 16th May 1998. The petitioners are his legal heirs. The respondent sought their eviction, inter alia, on the grounds that (i) they are in arrears of rent after the death of Kundan Lal – the original tenant; (ii) the respondents have ceased to occupy the shop, in fact Kundan Lal himself during his lifetime had ceased to occupy the demised premises which is lying permanently locked since the year 1989-90 and no business whatsoever has been conducted by Kundan Lal till he passed away on 16th May, 1998; (iii) the demised premises/shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as the roof of the last khan (part) has collapsed and malba is lying due to which rain water has been seeping into the foundations, endangering the entire building; the walls have suffered big cracks and the mortar used in the walls has gone off. The entire building is in a dilapidated condition. cr no.6001 of 2009.doc - 3 - 3. Upon notice, the petitioner-tenants filed their written reply and denied the allegations that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or they have ceased to occupy it. They averred that the eviction petition has been filed to pressurize them to increase the rent from Rs.40/- to Rs.500/- per month. The petitioner-tenant though admitted that the electricity connection in the premises stood disconnected way back but claimed that Kundan Lal used to open the shop at about 10.00 - 11.00 a.m. and closed the same at about 5.00 p.m. and after his death they are running the business without any electricity connection. They claimed that there is a proper circulation of light and air in the shop due to which one can work even without electricity. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also disputed. 4. Parties went on trial on the following issues:- i. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA ii. Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent? OPA iii. Whether the respondents ceased to occupy the premises in dispute? OPA iv. Whether the respondents have impaired the value and utility of demised shop? OPA v. Whether the demised shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation? OPA vi. Relief. 5. The relationship of landlord and tenant could not be seriously disputed. Similarly, issue No.2 also did not survive as the arrears of rent were tendered by the petitioners. The contentious issues on which the parties led their evidence were Issue No.3 to 5 only. 6. While deciding the Issue No.3 in favour of the respondent-landlord, the Rent Controller relied upon the statement of Vijay Kumar (AW4) cr no.6001 of 2009.doc - 4 - who is an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board and had produced the records in order to show that the electricity connection bearing Account No.SR-46-329 was permanently disconnected on 13th July, 1995 due to non-payment of electricity charges. He also proved that PDCO (Ex.AW4/1) clearly mentions that no electricity is being used and the account is closed as the shop is lying locked permanently. 7. Similarly, while deciding Issue No.4 and 5 in favour of the respondent-landlord, the Rent Controller, relied upon the report of the Expert (Ex.A1) which has been duly proved by Vijay Shankar Sharma – the Building Expert (AW1) who inspected the premises in the presence of the parties and also took photographs Ex.A1 to A41. The Rent Controller, also relied upon the statements of Chaman Lal (AW2), Rakesh Kumar (AW3) who are running their business near the shop in dispute and have deposed that the shop is lying closed since the year 1989-90 and has become totally unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller, Ferozpur did not give much credence to the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner-tenants that the landlord himself had demolished a part of the roof or the open verandah as a result of which the roof of the last khan (part) of the shop had fallen down. The Rent Controller took notice of the fact that building is 90 years old with kuccha floor. The load bearing walls are of small nanak shahi bricks which fact has been partly admitted by the Expert produced by the petitioner-tenants. 8. The Rent Controller, Ferozepur did not find any merit in the alleged compromise (Ex.RW4/44) on the basis of which it was claimed by the petitioners that the landlord admitted in the police station on 30th December, 2000 that he would repair the shop in question. No such admission was found mentioned in the above-stated document by the cr no.6001 of 2009.doc - 5 - Rent Controller. The resultant eviction order was, accordingly, passed. 9. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Ferozpur vide the impugned judgement dated 05th December, 2008. 10. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned orders as well as the records which have been summoned. 12. In my considered opinion, no interference with the impugned orders is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 13. The photographs on record (Ex.A4 to A44), leave no room for doubt that the demised premises has partly fallen down and the remaining portion is on the verge of collapse. The premises has become absolutely unfit and unsafe for human habitation and it would be too far to believe that the petitioners were running any business activities in t he same. From the condition of the roof and the cracked wooden baton, the premises has to be declared unsafe and dangerous to human life. There are big cracks in the walls as well. The nanak shahi bricks and the manner it appears to have been built does suggest that it is a very old building and has outlived its utility. 14. The record produced by the respondent-landlord from the Punjab State Electricity Board to the effect that the power supply was disconnected from the demised premises in the year 1995 also strengthens his plea that the demised premises is lying closed since the lifetime of the original tenant - Kundan Lal and no business activities whatsoever are being carried out since the year 1989-90. In a shop like this comprising three khans (parts) where there are no big windows or air ventilation, it is hard to believe that the original tenant cr no.6001 of 2009.doc - 6 - or for that matter the petitioners would be running their business without any electricity. 15. For the reasons afore-stated I am of the considered view that the findings returned by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, Ferozpur on Issues No.2, 3 & 4, namely that the premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or that the tenants have ceased to occupy the same for a sufficient long period, do not call for any interference by this Court. 16.Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 14.12.2009 vishal shonkar