Civil Revision No. 925 of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 925 of 2006 Date of decision : 27.5.2010 Roshan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Krishan Lal ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the respondent. S. D. ANAND, J. The petition filed by the respondent-landlord, for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of the premises having been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation, came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller. The finding therein came to affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. It is apparent, from a conjunctive perusal of the judgment rendered by both the Forums (learned Rent Controller as also learned Appellate Authority), that essential sustenance in support of the finding had been drawn from the report furnished by PW-7 Krishan Kumar Sharma, a qualified Civil Engineer, who had inspected the premises and given a finding that the tenanted Civil Revision No. 925 of 2006 -2- **** premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In detail, it was noticed that two karies of the roof (which was made up of wooden karies in entirety) were in damaged state. He further found that there were cracks in the walls and that a portion of the roof was in a bent condition. The site plan of the tenanted premises was enclosed by the witnesses aforementioned as Ex. PW7/2. The photographs of the tenanted premises, which were proved by PW-6 Pardeep Kumar, are also supportive of the finding recorded by the witness aforementioned. In the course of hearing of the present petition filed by the petitioner-tenant, a Coordinate Bench (Surya Kant, J.) directed on 30.11.2009 that the premises in entirety shall be inspected by the Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R) who shall furnish a report in the context to the Registrar of this Court. In granting that order, the Bench was persuaded by the fact that a period of nine years had elapsed after the filing of ejectment petition and it was deemed appropriate to ascertain the latest condition of the tenanted premises which is otherwise a part of a larger construction. In the initial report furnished by the Executive Engineer in compliance with the orders aforementioned, the Executive Engineer furnished the following report qua two shops in that building:- “Shop No.1 1. The roof of shop has been made of wooden battens and brick tiles. The wooden battens of the roof are sagging, eaten by aunts and also rotten by moisture. Civil Revision No. 925 of 2006 -3- **** Some portion of this roof has already fallen and rest of roof is also unsafe and may fall any time. 2. The wall of the shop has been made by Mud mortar and the plaster has deteriorated and fallen at many places. 3. Some cracks are visible in the walls. 4. The floor of the shop is also in bad condition. From above observation this shop is unsafe for human use. “Shop No.2 1. The roof of shop has been made of wooden battens and brick tiles. The wooden battens of the roof are sagging, eaten by aunts and also rotten by moisture. 2. The wall of the shop has been made by Mud mortar and the plaster has deteriorated at many places. 3. Some cracks are visible in the walls. 4. The floor was also in bad shape. From above observation this shop is unsafe for human use.” Thereafter, a presentation was made to the Court that it will be appropriate to have a report from that officer about the entire building from inside and outside thereof. The matter was referred to the Executive Engineer who furnished the following report qua shop no.3:- “ Shop No.3 Civil Revision No. 925 of 2006 -4- **** 1. The roof of shop has been made of wooden battens and brick tiles. The wooden battens of the roof are sagging, eaten by aunts and also rotten by moisture and unsafe for use. 2. The wall of the shop has been made by Mud mortar and the plaster has deteriorated and fallen at many places. 3. Some cracks are visible in the walls. 4. The floor of the shop is also in bad condition. From above observation this ship is unsafe for human use.” Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that there being no evidence that the entire building had been damaged, the impugned finding of ejectment cannot be upheld. Reliance, in support of the view, aforementioned was placed upon Piara Lal Vs. Kewal Krishan AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1432. The plea raised is totally denuded of merit for want of parallel between the facts in issue in Piara Lal's case (supra) and the present case. In Piara Lal's case (supra), it was found, as a fact, that roof of one room in the leased portion had fallen and there was no evidence that rest of the building had been damaged or become weak. In the present case, the finding is that all the three shops located in the building have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the light of foregoing discussion, I have not been persuaded to find any fault with the finding recorded by both the Forum on any valid score. The finding given by the Executive Civil Revision No. 925 of 2006 -5- **** Engineer, PWD (B&R), Panipat is in accord with the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also by the learned Appellate Authority. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Civil Revision No. 925 of 2006 -6- ****