Civil Revision No.2368 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2368 of 2006 Date of Decision: April 09, 2008 Bhola Ram ...Petitioner VERSUS Koshlya Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on two grounds, i.e., arrears of rent and that the house is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The finding returned by the Rent Controller evicting the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity, however, has been set-aside. The petitioner has Civil Revision No.2368 of 2006 : 2 : filed the present revision impugning the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has seriously challenged the order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. He says that no assessment of provisional rent was ever made. In fact, in terms of the law laid down in Rakesh Wadhawan Vs. M/s. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 514, the court was under obligation to make a provisional assessment of rent and then give time to the petitioner to deposit the same. That having not been followed, the findings of the courts below cannot be sustained. In support of the submissions made on the second ground on which the eviction of the petitioner is ordered, it is stated that the reasons, as given by the court, would not make the premises to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The reasons for holding against the petitioner are that the level of the street, which is abutting the house, has been raised by one or two feet. Accordingly, the level of the house has gone down by one or two feet. It is not possible to have a drainage, sewerage system or a water. It has been observed that in case the level of the floor is to be raised, it will reduce the height of the roof which would also require to be re-constructed. It has been noticed that if the floor level is to be raised, it would have to go better in height than the street which would further make it inhabitable. It is also noticed that it will amount to virtually re- construction of the house and as such it is not a case of minor repairs etc. The finding of fact, as recorded, may not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, specially so Civil Revision No.2368 of 2006 : 3 : when it is sought only on the basis of appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, refers to the case of Sri Kempaiah Vs. Lingaiah, 2002(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 532 to say that the revisional powers of the High court under Rent Act are wider than the powers conferred upon it under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further observed that the High Court is not precluded from appreciating the evidence for arriving at a conclusion regarding the alleged reasonable bona fide requirement. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would govern the power that can be exercised under Section 115 CPC and the Rent Act and are not in regard to exercise of revisional jurisdiction as such. Rather reference can be made to the case of Shiv Lal Vs. Sat Parkash and another, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 275 where it is held that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be used to act as a third Appellate Court and the court is not entitled to reverse the concurrent finding of fact. In Dev Kumar (Died) through L.Rs Vs. Smt.Swaran Lata and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 510 it is held that the revisional power of the High Court cannot be equated with the appellate jurisdiction. It is also held in this case that in the absence of perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence or unreasonable conclusion by the Appellate Authority, the High Court cannot interfere in the same. Thus, there is no need to have any further debate in regard to the scope of jurisdiction under the rent revision and it certainly does not appear to be as is canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to Civil Revision No.2368 of 2006 : 4 : the case of Bharat Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar, 2004(1) HRR 52. In this case, the roof of the demised shop was found in bad condition and was supported by three karis. There was no evidence in support of the fact that the tenant has provided any support to the roof. The contention raised that the building was old one was found not to be valid to presume that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Other assertions made by the landlord were also found not pleaded. I find that ratio of law laid down in this case has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The judgment has just been pressed to over burden the record. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner prays for grant of some time for the petitioner to vacate the demised premises. The petitioner would have three months time to vacate the demised premises. This shall, however, be subject to the condition that he will file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he will hand over the vacant possession of the house to the respondent on or before 30.6.2008. The petitioner shall also deposit the rent due upto 30.6.2008. This undertaking be filed within two weeks. The case is adjourned to 2.5.2008 for this purpose. April 09, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE