CR No.8291 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8291 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:01.03.2011. Satpal and another ...Petitioners Versus Surinder Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenants are in revision against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 24.10.2008 by which they have been ordered to vacate the shop No.B-I/556 within two months and against the order of the learned Appellate Authority dated 29.09.2010 by which the order of ejectment of the learned Rent Controller has been upheld. In brief, landlord Surinder Kumar filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] against Satpal S/o Sarup Chand and Lalit Bansal S/o Suresh Kumar in order to seek their ejectment from the shops forming part of property Unit No.(Old B-I/503-504) and new property Unit No.B-I/556 and 557, situated within the municipal limits of Barnala. The ejectment from the shop No.B-I/556 was sought on the ground that it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and from shop No.B-I/557 on the ground of personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition in respect of shop No.B-I/557, but allowed it qua shop No.B-I/556. Both, the landlord and the tenants, filed appeals which were registered as RA No3 of 20.11.2008 titled as `Satpal and another Vs. Surinder Kumar' and RA No.4 of 21.11.2008 titled as `Surinder Kumar Vs. Satpal and another'. The learned Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal filed by the CR No.8291 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** tenants bearing RA No.3 dated 20.11.2008 qua relief of adjustment of house tax along with interest of an amount of `9,500/- in future rent by way of counter claim, but dismissed the appeal wherein the order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged on the ground that the building has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, whereas the appeal bearing RA No.4 dated 21.11.2008 filed by the landlord was dismissed. Aggrieved against the orders of both the Courts below in respect of the finding that the demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the present revision petition has been filed in which learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the `Chaubara' built on the shop in dispute was in possession of the landlord, which even if collapsed, would not render the shop in dispute unsafe and unfit for human habitation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the available record in this regard. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, both the Courts below had found that the demised premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and in this regard, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is reproduced as under: - “143. This witness in the cross-examination has admitted that first floor of BI-556 is lying abandoned being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. He has admitted the gap of 20 to 22 inch between point A1 and A2 i.e. arch in Ex.R2. He has not denied this fact that as per photograph Ex.AW7/17 whether there is any support given under the roof or not, but he recognized this photograph being of the disputed property of BI- 556. He had also stated that he is not sure about any gap having been depicted in this photograph Ex.AW7/22 at point A, but admitted photograph Ex.AW7/18 pertaining to room No.1 of portion BI-556, he has admitted in the cross examination that as per the photograph Ex.R14, debris is depicted lying on the terrace of the ground floor and he has not denied this fact that this debris is of fallen room, on the first floor CR No.8291 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ***** but he admitted that there are some symptoms of hole in the wooden baton in the photographs. He has also admitted that arch is made of Nanakshanhi bricks. He also admitted that supports have been provided to the roof when there was likelihood of its fall. He has also admitted the support of two girders G1 and G2 to the roof. He also admitted that he has advised the party to remove the burden from the roof of the ground floor and he proved his advise as point X19 and X20. 144. This witness has also admitted that in photograph Ex.R8, he has shown dinning room on the first floor whereas as per the site plan prepared by him Ex.R2 dinning room is shown on the second floor and not on the first floor but he stated that there are two dining rooms one on the first floor and second on the second floor but admitted that there is no kitchen on the second floor of the portion BI-557 as shown by him in Ex.R22 but the kitchen is only on the first floor.” “147. In case Tripta Devi Vs. Jagdish Kumar, 2007(3) PLR 428 it has been held that where some portion of the first floor of the disputed shop had fallen down and debris/malba was lying on the roof of the shop, it was held that substantial part of the building has become unfit and unsafe and tenant can be ejected from the demised premises despite the fact that, that particular portion in his occupation may not be in a dilapidated condition. Similarly, in case Bishan Dass Vs. Phullan and another 1986(1) PLR 214 it has been held that where part of the roof of the chaubara had fallen and shop was old and out lived its age, it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 148. In the ratio of the law referred above and keeping in view the report of Shamsher Singh (AW7) CR No.8291 of 2010 (O&M) -4- ***** corroborated by the photographs and cross- examination of Dev Raj (RW2) learned Rent Controller rightly held that shop No.BI-556 has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and rightly ordered his ejectment. Therefore, findings of the learned lower court on this issue are affirmed.” Nothing substantial has been argued before this Court at the instance of the petitioners/tenants to persuade this Court to take a different view from the view taken by the Courts below on the basis of material available on record wherein it has been found that the demised premises has totally become unsafe and unfit for human habitation which justifies the order of eviction passed by the Courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. March 01, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE