CR No.690 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.690 of 2010 Date of Decision: 18 - 8 - 2010 Rakesh Kumar ....Petitioner v. Col. Jaswinder Singh Bains and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The tenant-petitioner has preferred the present revision petition against the order of his ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur. Tenant-petitioner Rakesh Kumar has averred that he had inherited the tenancy from his father Mulkh Raj. The demised shop was rented out by Gulbarg Singh, father of the respondent-landlord, who had instituted an eviction petition in the Court of Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur. In the eviction petition filed, it was stated that initially the rent of the demised shop was Rs.22/- p.m. and subsequently the same was enhanced to Rs.150/- p.m. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant was CR No.690 of 2010 [2] in arrears of rent since 1.4.2001 and the shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was stated that the shop in dispute was having 60 years old construction and the floor of the shop was 3 feet lower than road level, due to which there was water stagnation, dumpness and foundations of the shop had become depressed and have tilted. The walls of the shop were without cement plaster. The roof of the shop was made of wooden batons and wooden sehteers have been eaten away by white aunts and were in dilapidated condition. It was stated that the shop had become beyond repairs. The tenant in the ejectment petition took up a stand that earlier father of the respondent-landlord had filed an ejectment petition 34 years back in 1967. At that time, the same was withdrawn and a compromise was effected. Counsel for the petitioner submits that compromise has been taken on record as Ex.A22. It will be apposite here to reproduce the compromise, which when translated into English reads as under:- “In the Court of Shri M.R.Garg, Sub Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. Application regarding ejectment in Gulbarg Singh v. Mulkh Raj, Village Mahilpur. Compromise A compromise has been arrived at between both the parties. The rent of disputed shop is enhanced from Rs.22/- p.m. to Rs.150/- p.m. Till tenant Mulkh Raj is alive, the rent of the shop would be Rs.150/- p.m. and no ejectment petition shall be filed. After the death of tenant, the shop will be reconstructed and new tenancy shall be created. Gulbarg Singh has stated that he will withdraw the ejectment petition and get the same dismissed. Both the parties have read and heard the compromise and CR No.690 of 2010 [3] thereafter appended their signatures admitting its correctness in the presence of below noted witnesses.” Mr.Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the compromise to state that even if the demised shop has to be reconstructed, fresh tenancy should have been offered to the petitioner. To controvert this, Mr.Brar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that creation of fresh tenancy in no way means that same is to be executed with the petitioner. He stated that after the death of Gulbarg Singh, his son Col. Jaswinder Singh Bains stepped into his shoes. It is stated that in essence the tenancy has to remain valid qua Mulkh Raj only. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner has failed to assail the findings of fact of both the Courts below that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the testimony of AW1 Vijay Bagga, Building Expert. The photographs Exs.R1 to R5 produced by the petitioner show that the shop in question requires reconstruction. It has been further held by the Rent Controller that the aforesaid compromise in no way restrict the right of the landlord to file an eviction petition. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of fact returned by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority held that from testimonies of the witnesses of the respondent, it has been apparently proved on record that floor of the shop was definitely lower than the road level and as per terms of compromise Ex.A22, it can be safely inferred that the shop was not in a good condition. The revisional Court in exercise of its jurisdiction will be hesitant to do re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence. Hence, the findings of both the Courts below that the demised shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation are well reasoned. The view taken by both CR No.690 of 2010 [4] the Courts below is one which is possible on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Modern Hotel, Gudur, represented by M.N.Narayanan v. K. Radhakrishanaiah and ors., 1989(2) S.C.C. 686 to state that where lease of premises was for a specified period of 30 years and there is no forfeiture clause, the eviction of the tenant cannot be ordered during the subsistence of the lease. In the present case, in compromise Ex.A22, it was specifically stated that after the death of tenant, the shop will be reconstructed and new tenancy will be created. Since the shop is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the eviction of the tenant has been rightly ordered by both the Courts below. Consequently, no interference is warranted. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) August 18, 2010. JUDGE RC CR No.690 of 2010 [5]