CR No.873 of 2011 (O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.873 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:28.02.2011. Sucha Ram ...Petitioner Versus Narinder Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant has come up in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which his ejectment has been ordered, inter alia, on the grounds of subletting and the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In brief, the landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in respect of the demised premises which was allegedly let out at a monthly rent of `6/-. The ejectment was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent, subletting and the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 07.08.2009, allowed the ejectment petition by giving a finding on the issue of subletting and unfitness of the demised premises in favour of the landlord which was challenged by the tenant before the Appellate Authority, but the finding of the learned Rent Controller has been maintained by the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 25.09.2010, by observing as under: - “9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The appellant himself stepped into witness box as RW1. The perusal of his cross-examination shows that he has admitted that he had sublet the shop to Kirpal Chand son of Daulat Ram, CR No.873 of 2011 (O&M) -2- **** who is his nephew. He also admitted that he was running tailoring shop in Old Sabji Mandi, which is owned by M.C.Banga and he is in possession of the shop for the last 12/13 years. The distance between the property in dispute and the property, which is in his possession is situated at Bus Stand Banga. Thus, from the evidence, as discussed above, it is clear that the appellant has admitted that he has sublet the shop to Kirpal Chand, who is his nephew. Moreover, the respondent did not appear in the witness box nor the respondent No.1 examined him to prove that the premises in dispute was not in his possession. From the evidence as discussed above, it is clear that the petitioners proved all the ingredients of subletting. Apart from above, the petitioner also examined Vikas Chopra, Civil Engineer to prove that the property in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. To rebut the evidence, Harpreet Singh (RW2) was examined by the appellant. The cross-examination of Harpreet Singh (RW2) shows that he admitted that the age of the building is most important factor to determine the fitness and unsafeness and the property is B-class construction. He also admitted that the maximum age of B-class is 60 years provided that it is repaired regularly. He also admitted that at various places the plaster has fallen and on the front portion, the plaster of load bearing walls has fallen. Some plants have grown up in the walls and the plaster is uprooted due to dampness and it is also due to old age of the building. The present appellant in the cross-examination has admitted that he took the property in dispute about 40/42 years ago and the property is about 70 years old and the walls were constructed with lime and bricks. Thus, from the evidence as discussed CR No.873 of 2011 (O&M) -3- **** above, it is clear that even the witness of the appellant himself admitted that the property is B class construction and the maximum age of B-class construction is 60 years. From the admission of the expert examined by the appellant, it can be concluded that the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and from the evidence as discussed above, it is clear that the trial Court has rightly held that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and further rightly held that the premises has been sublet without the permission of the landlord. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the subsequent events can be taken into consideration as the appellant also deposed that his nephew has vacated the premises and therefore, the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside is totally devoid of any merit as the appellant did not examine his nephew as witness nor Kirpal Chand himself appeared as witness although he was one of the respondent in the rent petition.” During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner filed photographs of the demised shop by way of CM No.5660-CII of 2011. Since a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation which has been sublet without any permission, I do not find any reason not to agree with the findings of both the Courts below and as such, the present revision petition and the application for placing on record the documents/photographs are hereby dismissed. No costs. February 28, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE