C.R. No. 4325 of 2010 1 ****** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4325 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.07.2010 Prem Parkash Mittal & another .......... Petitioners Versus Ram Nath and Prem Lal Goel Aggarwal Family Trust, Amabala City through its Trustee ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the order dated 31.1.2009, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ambala City, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala , vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from shop No. 337 (Ground Floor) Ward No.4, Shukul Kund Road, Ambala City. The respondent / landlord sought eviction of the petitioner only on the ground, that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petition was opposed by the petitioner / tenant, wherein he claimed, that he was tenant in the building for the last 50 years, and that the building was in good condition. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent C.R. No. 4325 of 2010 2 ****** Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground mentioned in the petition as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR 3. Whether there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?OPR 4. Whether the present petition has not been filed by authorized and competent person?OPR 5. Relief.” In support of the case set up by the landlord, he examined Vijay Kumar as PW-1, and himself appeared as PW-2. He also examined Dinesh Kant Jindal, Building Inspector, as PW-3. Whereas on the other hand, the respondent examined Anil Kumar Malik, Civil Engineer as RW-1 and Vivek Kumar Mittal as RW-2 being his attorney. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence i.e. statement made by the Building Inspector and other evidence, decided issue No.1 in favour of the landlord / respondent, and held that the building in possession of the petitioner had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Issue No.2 was decided against the petitioner for want of any evidence, whereas issue No.3 was decided against the respondent, in view of the documentary evidence on record. C.R. No. 4325 of 2010 3 ****** Issue No.4 was also decided against the petitioner, for want of any evidence by the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded above, the learned Rent Controller, ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute and granted two months time to vacate it. In appeal, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenged the findings recorded by the learned Authorities below, on the ground, that the learned Authorities misread the evidence, to come to the conclusion, that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was, that the learned Court while considering the evidence was required to discuss the evidence of the expert examined by the petitioner, as well as the expert examined by the landlord / respondent, and thereafter form an opinion. It could not form an opinion by accepting the report of one expert against the other, without giving reasons for rejection of report of other expert, therefore, the findings of the learned Rent Controller, as well as the learned Appellate Authority stood vitiated. It is further the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the learned authorities below wrongly drew adverse inference against the petitioner for not appearing in the witness box, though he examined his attorney as RW-2, who being C.R. No. 4325 of 2010 4 ****** son had special means of knowledge, with regard to the condition of the shop, therefore, and his evidence should have been taken into consideration. It is also the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the learned Authorities took note of the objections filed by the petitioner to oppose the application moved under Order 8 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of the Local Commissioner for spot inspection. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was, that it was the right of the petitioner to oppose the application, as the parties were required to lead evidence to prove their respective case. In case the learned Rent Controller so felt, he could have allowed the application, but no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The authorities under the Rent Act were required to record a finding on appreciation of evidence in totality. The evidence can not be read in isolation. In view of the fact, that two reports of the Experts were placed on record, the learned Authorities under the Rent Act could accept one of the two, keeping in view the other evidence on record. Merely because one report is accepted by rejecting the other, can not be a ground to challenge the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority. The reading of the judgment of the learned Rent C.R. No. 4325 of 2010 5 ****** Controller, as well as the learned Appellate Authority would show, that the finding with regard to the building being unfit and unsafe for rehabilitation has been recorded on appreciation of evidence, and the conduct of the parties. The findings have, thus, been recorded on the basis of commulative effect of the evidence led by the respective parties. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that adverse inference was wrongly drawn against the petitioner for opposing the application moved under Order 8 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also devoid of any force. The learned authorities under the Rent Act took note of the opposition to form an opinion to assess the other evidence on record. The findings are not based merely on adverse inference. The learned Authorities also took note of the fact, that the petitioner had chosen not to appear in the witness box, and his attorney i.e. his son was not in a position to withstand cross- examination, as he was not in a position to describe the condition of the shop. The contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, therefore, can not be accepted, as the learned Authorities have based their findings on appreciation of evidence i.e. the statement of the landlord / respondent, coupled with the report of the expert, and also the evidence led by the respondent by examining attorney, who did not have any special means of knowledge, though so claimed. The finding of fact with regard to the building being unfit C.R. No. 4325 of 2010 6 ****** and unsafe for rehabilitation can not be interfered with on the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, as the findings can not be said to be perverse or based on misreading of evidence. No merit. Dismissed. 15.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE