IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.586 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision:28.07.2011 Karnail Singh & anr. ....petitioners Versus Kulwant Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sarju Puri,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.G.N.Malik, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.(ORAL): This is tenants' revision petition challenging the impugned orders whereby his eviction has been ordered on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The finding whether the building is unfit for human habitation or not, is essentially a finding of fact. Not only this, on 27th April, 2011, this Court passed the following order: Dispute in this case is with regard to the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Both the parties led their respective evidence by producing photographs and report of Expert, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that the shop in his possession is fit for human habitation. Civil Revision No.586 of 2011(O & M) -2- On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation due to deep cracks which had developed therein and prayed for appointment of a Local Commissioner to find out the factual position. In view thereof, Mr.Rajnish Chauhan, Advocate who is present in the Court is appointed as Local Commissioner to inspect the building, who shall visit the spot on 09.05.2011 at 11 a.m.after giving notices to both the parties and submit his report along with photographs of his inspection. His fee is fixed at Rs.15,000/- including the expenses which shall be borne by both the parties to the litigation equally. Adjourned to 23.05.2011 for awaiting the report of the Local Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondent assured the Court that they will not press the execution in the meantime. A copy of this order be given to the Local Commissioner under the signatures of Bench Secretary of the Court. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the report of the Local Commissioner was submitted which reads as follows: That this Hon'ble Court vide order dated April 27, 2011 was pleased to appoint the undersigned as Local Commissioner to inspect the Civil Revision No.586 of 2011(O & M) -3- building situated at G.T.Road, Khanna, District Ludhiana on May 09, 2011 at 11 a.m.after giving notices to both the parties and submit report along with photographs of inspection. That in compliance of the order dated April 27, 2011 the undersigned reached the site on May 09,2011 at 10 AM and started the proceedings at 11 AM as per the directions given by this Hon'ble Court. Though as per the said order, the notices were sent to the parties, but petitioner No.2 not came present. Mr.Karnail Singh, petitioner No.1 and Mr.Kulwant Singh, respondent was present. That the undersigned proceeded to inspect the site. It may be mentioned that apart from Mr.Karnail Singh petitioner, his son Mr.Jaipal Singh,Mr.Kulwant Singh respondent and his son Mr.Parminder Singh, were also present. That petitioner no. 1 as also the respondent had shown and apprised the undersigned the demised premises. Both the parties accepted the position at the site. That the undersigned in order to give clear picture of the actual position existing at the site, even took certain photographs, copies of which are collectively annexed hereto as Annexure LC/1. Photographs numbered '1' and '2' show the structure/front portion of the building which includes Civil Revision No.586 of 2011(O & M) -4- demised shop and photographs numbered as '3' and '4' shows the sides of the building. However photograph number '5' is the left side outer wall of the demised shop showing the cracks and photograph no. '6' is the inside wall of the very same wall (i.e. shows same cracks). As is apparent, the cracks have already developed which also depict from photographs numbered as '7', '8' and '9'. Even photographs no. 9, 11 & 12 shows some leakage of the roof. That in order to examine to the condition of the roof of the demised shop, the undersigned took photographs numbered as 10 to 14. The front portion of shop has plywood ceiling and T.Irons on the overall roof were rusted. The undersigned also clicked photographs of the roof from various angles even top of the ceiling. Photographs no. 15 & 16 are pictures of lintel which shows some cracks covered with plaster in order to stop the leakage from rain water. From inspection of the site, as also from the perusal of the photographs taken at the spot, it is clear that the shop is not in good condition. That the undersigned after having inspected the site, made an “on the spot report” and had got signatures of the persons present and assisting. The report so prepared at the spot as also the attendance sheet, which forms part of the Civil Revision No.586 of 2011(O & M) -5- said on the spot report., are collectively annexed hereto as Annexure LC/2. That the present report is being submitted accordingly.” Along with this report, Local Commissioner has also produced some photographs of the property in dispute. It is not in dispute that photographs as placed before this Court by the Local Commissioner are of the existing structure of the demised premises. A perusal of the report and a perusal of the photographs even by naked eyes are enough to hold that the building is unfit and unsafe. Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders. I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.07.2011 neenu