IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3380 of 2007 Date of decision: 18th November, 2008 Gurcharan Singh … Petitioner Versus Rakesh Malik and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naveen S. Panwar, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed by tenant, whose eviction has been ordered by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, he filed an appeal and the appellate authority also upheld his eviction. Therefore, necessity of filing the present revision petition has arisen. Three grounds were taken for seeking eviction of the tenant. Firstly, that the tenant is in arrears of rent and due to non-payment of rent and tender, he is liable to be evicted. Second ground taken was that by constructing the strong room and affixing shutter, the value and utility of the property has been materially impaired and the third ground, which was pleaded was that the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and living. Before I proceed to detail the facts and consider the findings of the two courts below, Mr.O.P. Goel, Senior Advocate assisted by Civil Revision No. 3380 of 2007 Mr.Naveen S. Panwar, on instructions from Mr.Naveen S. Panwar, has stated that even though on the arrears of rent, two courts below have adjudicated in favour of the tenant. Regarding the second ground that the construction made by the tenant by raising a strong room has materially impaired the value and utility of the property, though finding has been returned in favour of landlord, the same be dropped at this stage as he will not press this issue. On instructions from Mr.Naveen S. Panwar, he has very candidly stated that this Court should confine itself to the findings returned by the two courts below to the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and living. Having restricted the realm, limited to one ground for adjudication, I confine myself to the same and notice the brief facts. The property in question was an evacuee property vide a sale certificate dated 25th October, 1961 was transferred in the name of six persons, names and details of whom need not be mentioned, as the present petitioner claims that this property has fallen to his share vide a partition decree based on family settlement dated 3rd September, 1987. Relationship of landlord and tenant is also established between the parties. Therefore, as to when the tenancy commenced, also need not be gone into. Suffice it to say that Gurcharan Singh tenant, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the strong room was constructed by him in year 1956. He has also admitted that the iron shutter was also got installed in the demised premises. Mr. Mahajan states that this admission in cross-examination will pale into insignificance, especially when earlier the civil suit was filed by the landlord against the tenant on 20th March, 1963 and appeal and regular second appeal filed by the landlord were also dismissed. It is in this context that Mr.Goyal has stated that he will drop the ground of material impairment of the demised premises. 2 Civil Revision No. 3380 of 2007 Since the property was an evacuee property, it can be safely assumed that the structure of the building is very old. To prove this ground, Ashok Malik landlord himself appeared as AW-1. To corroborate this, Dhani Ram Saini Architect was examined as AW-2, who proved his inspection report (Ex.AW-2/2) and site plan of the demised premises (Ex.AW-2/1). He had stated that the building has become obliterated, unfit and unsafe for human habitation and living, and has outlived its utility. It was further stated that three storey building is liable to be demolished in public interest. The inspection report (AW-2/2) of Dhani Ram Saini, Architect AW-2 is accompanied by photographs (AW-3/1 to AW-3/25). The trial Court, on the perusal of photographs, opined that the roof and wall of second and third floor has already fallen. The front portion of the first floor had also fallen down and there were multiple cracks on the walls of three floors as well as in the shop in question. There is dislocation of bricks and joints. It further stated that roof of the stones slabs is also visible in the photographs. After having opined, the trial Court placed reliance upon the various judgments relied by the landlord and held that on the ground of building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, tenants are liable to be evicted. This finding has been concurred by the appellate authority. It has noticed that no expert has been examined by the tenant to impeach the credibility of Dhani Ram Saini AW-2. Mr.Mahajan appearing for the petitioner has stated that Dhani Ram Saini being an Architect, is only possessed of the skills to draw the plan and he lacks sufficient expertise to determine the age and condition of the building. Therefore, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. I am afraid, this contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The inspection report accompanied by site plan and photographs is sufficient to corroborate the testimony of AW-1 Ashok 3 Civil Revision No. 3380 of 2007 Malik. Therefore, a heavy duty was cast upon the tenant to lead the evidence to dislodge the testimony of the witnesses. No such course has been adopted by the tenant, therefore, he has failed in two courts below. I have perused the concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below and I affirm the same as they are based upon sound principles. There is no infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, as the opinion formulated by two courts below is one, which can be formulated on the facts and evidence of the case. At this stage, Mr.Mahajan states that since the petitioner is an arms dealer and arms and weapons are deposited in the demised premises, therefore, security is required and sufficient time be granted to the petitioner to move out of the demised premises. I find merit in this prayer of Mr.Mahajan. Accordingly, three months’ time is granted to the petitioner to do the needful. With these observations present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 18, 2008 rps 4