IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1643 of 2009 Date of decision:27.03.2009 Arun Kumar and another ...Petitioners versus Janeshwar Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the respondent/Caveator. --- 2. Civil Revision No.1644 of 2009 Arun Kumar and another ...Petitioners versus Janeshwar Kumar ...Respondent 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.KANNAN, J.(Oral) 1. The two civil revisions relates to the same subject matter and between the same parties. The sole surviving ground for challenge was that the landlord's contention that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The two authorities below upheld the contention of the landlord and found on the examination of the report Civil Revision No.1643 of 2009 - 2 - of building expert who had given evidence before the Court that the building was more than hundred years of age and that it was not fit for human habitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the report that had been filed along with the petition had not been properly proved by examination of the person who drew up the report. Yet another report was produced during the course of trial and the person who had drawn the report was also examined. According to him, this report also cannot be relied on because the evidence showed that the witness was not able to recall the directions of the building and was not himself a person belonging to the same town. He had been brought as a witness from some other place. The further contention on behalf of the tenant by the learned counsel is that the negatives of the photographs had not been produced and the photographs provided as such evidence were not worthy of acceptance. 3. The Courts below have examined the report which was submitted before the Rent Controller and the proof of which was brought out through examination of the person who made the report. It sets out in elaborate terms that the building was more than hundred years of age and due to excessive corrosion of the steel girders embedded in the walls at the ends and the stresses induced because of rusting of steel, a thrust has developed resulting in cracks at the junction of steel girders and the walls/roof. There are other features of the building also that have been brought out to say that the wide cracks had developed at the junctions between the main building and the projected portions. The Civil Revision No.1643 of 2009 - 3 - report further points out that the wooden members used as purlins had been eaten up by the ants/termites and had been left with no role to play as horizontal structure members under the roof. Commenting about the nature of plaster used, the report states that the mortar between the bricks in the masonry had already spent its age, the bond between the bricks had weakened to an alarming state leading to disintegration of brick masonry as vertical structural members of the building. 4. The two Courts below have considered the report and come to a factual finding that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner carries on his business and is interested in saying that the building is safe and after all, there could be no better person than the tenant himself to worry for its safety. If we should go only by a tenant's averments relating to the suitability of the building, there could hardly by any instance any tenant admitting that the building is unsafe for habitation. Invariably, Courts below have to look at experts who after inspection draw up reports as to the age of the building, structural integrity and suitability of the building. It may not be a building that would fall down the next day. Old structures in a city or town that have no heritage value are like pimples in a face. A cosmetic effacement is nothing unusual. Old buildings have to give place to new and if in the perception of the landlord that such building which is his own would require to be brought down, he need not wait till the building cracks, wilts and goes into rubbles by itself. He has right to bring down the building when it poses a threat to safety. Civil Revision No.1643 of 2009 - 4 - 5. The Courts below have not passed orders in the air, but they have anchored on the report of expert and the evidence of witnesses. 6. There is no scope for interference in such factual considerations that have been brought to bear upon the decision of the Court below and the revision is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 27.03.2009 sanjeev