Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.12.2008 Pritam Kaur …Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking eviction of Suresh Kumar from the shop, details and description of which has been given in the head note of the eviction petition, on two grounds, firstly he has not paid arrears of rent and secondly that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as part of its roof is lying fallen due to its dilapidated condition and all its walls have developed cracks. Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner- landlady has stated that ground of non-payment of rent is not being pressed as the arrears of rent were tendered by the tenant. Further he has stated that concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008 2 that the building is not unsafe and unfit for human habitation, can be assailed before this Court. Petitioner-landlady examined G.D.Wadhera, Building Expert, as AW.1, Krishan Sood, Photographer, as AW.2, Surjit Singh as AW.3, Manjit Kaur as AW.4 and legal representative of the petitioner Pritam Kaur as AW.5. However, respondent-tenant himself appeared as RW.1. He further examined Ravi Kumar, Building Expert, as RW.2 and Surinder Sharma, Photographer, as PW.3, who proved photographs Ex.RW3/2 to Ex.RW3/14. Learned Rent Controller held that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of G.D.Wadhera, Building Expert, AW.1 examined by the landlady as he had not tested the material falling from the batons. Two Experts were examined by both the sides. The Courts below have found that the testimony of Ravi Kumar, Building Expert, RW.2, aspire confidence, whereas it was held that Expert examined by the petitioner-landlady has not given sufficient basis for giving his findings in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Khanna has read the report of the Building Expert G.D. Wadhera AW.1, examined by the landlady. I have heard the same. The report lacks necessary professionalism. Except for the weakness of the wooden batons, Expert has not given any reasons, visual observations and strength of the material to arrive at the findings given in report. Therefore, the two Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and found the testimony of Ravi Kumar, Building Expert, RW.2, examined by the tenant to be reliable. Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008 3 Therefore, no interference is warranted while exercising the revisonal jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 5, 2008 “DK”