CR No. 1516 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 1516 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2010 Jagdish Singh ....Petitioner Versus Davinder Kumar and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J. (Oral). 1. This is a revision by the sub-tenant under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assailing the judgement passed by the appellate authority dated 18.11.2009 whereby allowing the appeal and directing eviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-tenancy as well as on the ground of accommodation is unfit and unsafe for use and human inhabitation. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent – landlord preferred an application under Section 13(2)(ii) of the Act seeking eviction of the tenants i.e. respondent No.1 and the present revisionist (sub-tenant) impleaded as respondent No.2 therein on the ground of sub-tenancy as well CR No. 1516 of 2010 2 as on the ground building is unfit for use and human inhabitation. 3. Learned trial Court/Rent Controller did not find favour with the pleadings set-up by the landlord and rejected the eviction application. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Rent Controller, appeal was filed before the appellate authority under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Learned appellate authority has recorded a finding of fact that even respondent No.1, the real brother of respondent No.2 (revisionist) has pleaded before the Rent Controller that he is the only tenant in the property in dispute and respondent No.2 (revisionist) was never inducted as tenant by the landlord. Learned appellate authority has also observed in the impugned judgement that in a judgement of the previous litigation dated 3.4.1995, mortgage deed dated 12.11.1961 was directed to be redeemed and in that judgement, Jagdish Singh – respondent No.2 was not held to be original tenant and his brother respondent No.1 was held to be the tenant. Undisputedly, present revisionist feeling aggrieved from the judgement and decree dated 3.4.1995 approached this Court in RSA No.164 of 1995. Ultimately RSA No.164 of 1995 was withdrawn by the present revisionist by stating that he would establish his tenancy rights in separate proceedings against his own brother Krita Singh, who was found to be sole tenant in the judgement dated 3.4.1995. Learned Single Judge of this Court while permitting withdrawal of the appeal has specifically observed that withdrawal of appeal shall not be considered as expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy. Learned Single Judge while permitting withdrawal of appeal, nowhere observed that observations made by the competent Courts in the judgements impugned before learned Single Judge in RSA No.164 of 1995, would not be taken into account while dealing with CR No. 1516 of 2010 3 the plea of present revisionist claiming himself to be sole tenant. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the competent Court has already held in the judgement mentioned hereinabove that respondent No.1 Krita Singh was the sole tenant inducted by the landlord in the disputed premises. That being so, respondent No.2 (present revisionist) was never inducted by the landlord as tenant in the disputed premises. Undisputedly, he is in possession in the property in dispute. The possession of the present revisionist in property in dispute would not make him original tenant in the property and in view of the above findings, he would be only sub-tenant. In view of the above, learned appellate authority has not committed any mistake or jurisdictional error while observing that the present tenant is sub- tenant and the landlord has proved the sub-tenancy against respondents No.1 and 2 therein. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist half-heartedly challenged the finding of the appellate authority as to whether the disputed premises is unfit and unsafe to use for human inhabitation. He could not point out any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the appellate authority. 6. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act can only see the legality and propriety of the judgement impugned. Legality or propriety does not mean re-appreciation of the finding. Learned counsel argued that this is the case where the appellate authority has mis- read the evidence, hence this Court can exercise the revisional power and read the evidence available on the record. 7. With respect I do not agree with the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist. Legality or propriety as observed above, does not mean that this Court has the power to re-appreciate or re-read the CR No. 1516 of 2010 4 evidence. Even if two views are possible, this Court cannot interfere while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 10.03.2010 sk.