CR No.1653 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1653 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.3.2011 Parminder Singh . . .Petitioner Versus Prem Rani and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.N.C. Kinra, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against orders of eviction passed by the Courts below on an application filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’), inter alia, on the ground of the premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Appellate Authority recorded as follows: “It was undisputed that the rear portion for the demises which was in occupation of a tenant namely Sudesh Kumar Gulshan had fallen down as was admitted by appellant himself in his cross- examinations appearing as RW1. He admitted that said Sudesh Kumar Gulshan was in occupation of one big hall over and above the shop facing main road and there was one small room behind the main hall on the first floor along with one kitchen and big room. Said small room in occupation of Sudesh Kumar had fallen down and after that kitchen under the stairs. It was also admitted that he vacated the property when a roof of his room had fallen down. Respondent even admitted the photographs Ex.P17 to Ex.P23 produced by the petitioners/landlord as belonging to the portion under his tenancy. He further admitted that he had given support of pipes to the roof of tenanted premises. The photographs Ex.P-17 to CR No.1653 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - Ex.P-23 clearly show that the roof of tenanted premises had been given support of pipes and the roof was made of bricks supported by wooden Balas. Even in the conclusion made in his report Ex.DW2/1 by Expert examined by respondent as DW2, he has mentioned that on the first floor of the building in its rear portion there was lying garbage/waste material containing water that was to cause damage to the roof if the same was not removed from there. It also concluded that the construction of the building in question was about 35 years old and the condition of the building at that time showed that if maintenance of the same is done time to time then its future life could be increased by more than 15 years. This expert witness also admitted in his cross-examination that roof of the shop in dispute was made of wooden Balas so far as it rear portion was concerned. He further admitted that mud mortar was used for construction of the walls and the building was made of old and new material” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the building is still subsisting despite the fact that the petition was instituted on 18.7.1998, which in itself is sufficient proof that it has not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the evidence available on record from which it is apparent that the building has already outlived its life and has been given support with the pipes (as shown in photographs Ex. P-17 to P-23), no other view can be taken by this Court to disturb the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below. Hence, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit as such the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MARCH 16, 2011 JUDGE Vivek