Civil Revision No. 1631 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1631 of 2008 Date of decision : 15.2.2010 Pawan Kumar and another ....Petitioners Versus Mangat Ram ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. Both the Courts (the Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority granted eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises in favour of the landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') and against the tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner). The findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller to the effect that that respondent requires the tenanted premises for his personal bonafide requirement and that premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. (Insofar as the non payment of rent is concerned, it is no longer in controversy. This fact would be evident from a perusal of para 14 of the judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Authority). Both the Courts further recorded a finding that the petitioner had ceased to occupy the rented premises since the year 1991. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued that the findings recorded by both the Courts are not borne out by Civil Revision No. 1631 of 2008 -2- **** the evidence available on record. There is no force in the plea on behalf of the petitioners. The following facts-based observations would be supportive of this view of mine. It would be apparent from a perusal of the impugned orders that respondent is proved on record to have purchased the tenanted premises (alongwith certain properties situated towards Eastern and Southern side thereof) vide registered sale deed dated 26.12.1985. A certified copy thereof is available on record as Ex. P-50. The premises presently under the occupation of the respondent had been purchased by his brother-Roshan Lal, vide registered sale deed dated 7.5.1984 ( Ex.P- 52). There has been a litigation between the respondent and his brother Roshan Lal and there is a subsisting decree in favour of Roshan Lal aforementioned for ejectment of the respondent from the premises owned by the former (Roshan Lal). The present is, thus, a case wherein the landlord of the tenanted premises is himself residing in a rented accommodation and his ejectment from the premises has already been ordered. Execution proceedings in that respect are pending before the learned Executing Court. For want of any evidence to prove that the decree aforementioned was collusive, as between the respondent and Roshan Lal aforementioned above, it has to be assumed that prospect of imminent ejectment would loom large in the mind of the respondent and in that view of things, he is entitled to validly request for ejectment of the petitioners from the tenanted premises of which he (i.e. the respondent) is the title holder. It is further evident from the material obtaining on the file that Civil Revision No. 1631 of 2008 -3- **** Keshav Ram was already a tenant in the tenanted premises at the time of purchase by the respondent. Even otherwise, it cannot be said with any justification that the respondent can stay on indefinitely in the house of his brother, the petitioner cannot validly resist ejectment. Insofar as the present condition of the disputed premises is concerned, the finding recorded by both the Courts below are buttressed by a perusal of photographs Ex. P-7, Ex. P9 to Ex. P-14 and Ex. P-16 to Ex. P-19. The age old adage 'Men may lie but the circumstances do not' would fully apply to Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-19 qua the depiction of the status of the tenanted premises. The oral evidence adduced by the respondent qua the condition of the tenanted premises is fully buttressed by above noted pieces of evidence. All the facts, having relevant bearings upon the controversy with the regard to tenanted premises being unfit and unsafe for human habitation were noted by the learned Appellate Authority in the course of para 24 of the judgment under challenge. The relevant para is extracted hereunder:- “To prove this ground of ejectment the petitioner – landlord examined PW5 Hari Ram, retired Civil Engineer who proved his report Ex.P-43 and Ex.P-46, Ex.P-43 is preliminary stability report whereas Ex.P-46 is stability report by the witness. In both these reports, this witness gave minute details and specifications with regard to condition of the building. Firstly this witness had inspected the premises on 26.04.1997 and had prepared report Ex.P-43. Second time he visited the premises on 31.05.1998 after the petitioner's counsel obtained permission from learned Rent Controller to visit the same and Civil Revision No. 1631 of 2008 -4- **** had prepared report Ex.P-46. As per report Ex.P-46 the foundation of the shop had been damaged due to the havoc which floods played in the year 1995. He further reported that the eastern wall of the demised premises had fallen due to the major cracks which was a 45 degree angle from the floor level to roof level and these cracks further damaged the column and beam. The bricks from these cracks could be removed by hand. The wall was bending towards outside by 1-1/2'. The cracks extended from first floor to roof level. There were cracks on the southern wall showing thickness from ½' to ¾' and depth upto 3'. The observations made in this report were corroborated by photographs Ex.P7 to Ex.P9. From these photographs the building in question appears to be old and damaged. While cross-examining PW5 no suggestion was pout to the effect that the photographs were not genuine. From these photographs as well as from the report of PW5 it was clear that the building in question was not fir for human habitation and had become unsafe. The respondent to controvert the evidence of the petitioner produced one expert witness namely DW2 M.S. Sharma, Suptt. Engineer who proved his report Ex.D1 to the effect that the building could live for another 100 years. However, he admitted that the crack extended in the plaster was due to non-maintenance. The credit of evidence led by the expert witness of the petitioner i.e. PW4 could not be shaken. DW2 did not say anything about the age of the building. No doubt it is correct that the age of the building is not determining factor about Civil Revision No. 1631 of 2008 -5- **** building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation but from the evidence led by the petitioner it stands proved that the demised premises are old one built of small bricks and there are cracks in the building. Planks over the cracks are bent down and in some places they have fallen down. Even mud from ceiling walls was visible from some places. The wooden karries were also ant eaten. There was dampness in the godown and the foundation floor and wall had been damaged. In these circumstances, in my opinion the learned Rent Controller was quite justified in holding that the building in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and was in dilapidated condition and the appellant-tenant had become liable to be ejected on this ground. Therefore, finding of learned Rent Controller on issue no.1 qua two grounds for ejectment i.e. personal necessity and the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation are not erroneous and, therefore, the same are hereby affirmed.” This Court has, thus, no reservation in affirming the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority that the tenanted premises have been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Insofar as the item of grievance (to the effect that the petitioners had ceased to occupy the rented premises since the year 1991) is concerned, we may advert to the material obtaining on the file to the effect that the electricity connection (to the tenanted premises) was disconnected in the year 1991. Further, it also requires pointed notice that Pawan Kumar, a son of the petitioner, had appeared as a witness in a civil Civil Revision No. 1631 of 2008 -6- **** suit titled Janki Dass Keshav Ram Vs. Mangat Ram. In the course of that statement ( a copy whereof is available on record Ex. P-3), he had testified on oath that none was residing on the first floor of the tenanted premises for the last about 6-7 years. It would require pertinent notice, in the context, that the respondent has already got the site plan sanctioned for the reconstruction of the tenanted premises. The sanction of site plans was testified on oath by PW-2 Om Parkash (Building Inspector, Municipal Council, Rohtak) in the course of his record-based statement. There is enough material available on file that the respondent has been able to prove that the petitioners had built their own house and are residing there only, alongwith members of their family for the last more than ten years. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 15, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE