Civil Revision No. 5624 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5624 of 2008 Date of decision : 18.1.2010 Ram Devi ....Petitioner Versus Ram Parkash ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Vandana Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Anju Rathore, Advocate for the respondent S. D. ANAND, J. The order granted by the learned Rent Controller in favour of the petitioner-land lady was set aside by the learned Appellate Authority in an appeal. As a consequence thereof, the petition filed by the petitioner-land lady for ejectment of the respondent from the tenanted premises was ordered to be dismissed. The other points averred at the trial were not pressed before the learned Rent Controller. In the petition, the petitioner-land lady applied for ejectment on a precise averment that the tenanted premises are in a dilapidated condition and have ceased to be fit for human use and occupation. In that context, it had been averred that the eastern wall made of old small bricks had given way, that its flooring had also given way and that tenanted premises could fall any moment Civil Revision No. 5624 of 2008 -2- because the roof thereof is supported by wooden beams which had outlived their utility. The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that “some bricks had fallen from the roof of the shop towards Southern side”, that “the condition of the southern wall is very bad” because about 150-200 bricks have fallen from the wall BC”, that the sun shade of the shop had fallen and iron tor (saria) could be seen at the place” and further that “there were cracks in the northern wall”. It was on the basis of above finding that the learned Rent Controller accepted the evidence adduced by the petitioner-land lady. In that context, it also noticed that “the circumstantial evidence also favours the case of the petitioner. The surrounding buildings of the shop have also fallen or the same have been demolished by the petitioner for reconstruction.” It further weighed with the learned Rent Controller that the Municipal Committee had already issued notices to the petitioner for vacation of the premises on account of it having outlived its utility. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority declined to place reliance upon the notice issued by the Municipal Committee (requiring the petitioner to demolish the tenanted premises on account of the same being in dilapidated condition) as those had been issued during the pendency of the cause. It also relied upon the fact that shops adjacent to the petitioner premises had not been proved to be in dangerous condition. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- land lady, argues that the learned Appellate Authority committed Civil Revision No. 5624 of 2008 -3- grave error of law in not relying upon the report furnished by the technical expert who had categorically indicated the present status of the tenanted premises. The present is a pure and simple cause where both the parties have examined an expert each to buttress their respective pleas. It is, thus, a case of expert versus expert. This Court has not been able to persuade itself to attach any weight to the reports furnished by the experts. Insofar as the municipal committee notices Mark A and Mark B are concerned, this Court agrees with the learned Appellate Authority when the latter says that these all seem to have been procured because these were issued during the pendency of the litigation. Even otherwise, these notices have not been proved by adducing any substantive evidence at the trial. It would have been proper for the petitioner-land lady to examine a municipal official who could have proved what exactly was the foundational premise of the notices. In the normal course of things, if there is a building within the municipal area which has outlived its utility, a person in occupation thereof would be visited, the spot inspected and a report given by the municipal official concerned on the basis of the inspection of the tenanted premises. All that ought to have been proved by substantive evidence at the trial. In view of the fact that there are contradictory reports furnished by the two experts engaged by the parties and the fact that the demolition notices issued by the Municipal Committee do not deserve to be relied upon as those had been issued during the pendency of the cause and also the fact that there is no other Civil Revision No. 5624 of 2008 -4- acceptable evidence to uphold the plea raised by the landlord in the context, it is apparent that the view obtained by the learned Appellate Authority deserves affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly., In the light of foregoing discussion, I find that the learned Appellate Authority recorded fairly acceptable reasoning to turn the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller upside down. The reasoning of reversal is appropriate and deserves affirmation. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. January 18, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE