CR No.3674 of 2011(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.3674 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 31.5.2011 Pankaj Trading Company, Ludhiana and others . . .Petitioners Versus Dilbagh Rai and others . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Vibhav Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises. In brief, the landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) in order to seek eviction of the tenant from one room forming part of the property bearing No.B- IX-185 (new) B-VI-256 (old) situated at Maleri Gali, Ludhiana, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.11.1986 @ `125/- per month, the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and personal necessity. The learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the tenant only on the ground of building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Consequently, the tenant filed Rent Appeal No.9 of 2005 titled as “Pankaj Trading Company, Ludhiana and others Vs. Phoolan Rani” and the landlord filed cross-objections in respect of the issues which were decided against him. However, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant and allowed the cross-objections of the landlord and ordered the eviction of the tenant on all the grounds of eviction but the fact remains that the finding on issue No.1 was concurrently recorded by both the Courts below on the appreciation of evidence, against the tenant. Although, learned counsel for the tenant has vehemently argued that the finding of the Courts below have been wrongly recorded but he could not point CR No.3674 of 2011(O&M) - 2 - out any perversity. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to finding of the Appellate Authority recorded in para No.12 of its judgment pertaining to the question on unfitness of the demised premises, which reads as under: “So far as the issues No.1 and 2 are concerned, PW-1 Vijay Kumar has deposed that the property in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. From the sale deed, it is proved that Dilbagh Rai was in possession of the suit property since the year 1928 as a tenant meaning thereby that the property in dispute was constructed earlier to 1928. The photographs produced on record by the respondent shows that there are cracks in walls and balas. The temporary arrangement have been made to cover the balas by putting cartons on the balas. The ld. Rent Controller has appreciated the statement of Vijay Kumar PW-1 who has deposed that the demised premises has outlived its life. The Ld. Rent Controller has also appreciated and considered the photographs produced and proved on record by the respondent. The Ld. Rent Controller has also appreciated the statement of Subhash Chander who has appeared in the witness box as PW-2. The respondent has not rebutted the statements of the petitioner’s witnesses. He has examined Roshan Lal but he was never produced for cross-examination. The ld. Lower court has rightly held that the statement of Roshan Lal cannot be read into evidence as he has not come up for his cross-examination. Though the report of the expert is on the file but the expert has not been examined by the appellant. Photographer produced by the appellant has admitted that the expert has not inspected the walls. He himself could not recognize the situation of the photographs clicked by him. He has admitted that he took 12 photographs, but all the photographs have not been produced on record by the appellant. The Ld. Rent CR No.3674 of 2011(O&M) - 3 - Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that from the statement of the expert and the photographs it is proved that shop is in bad condition and wooden balas and planks have been eaten by white ant and joints have left their place and cracks in the walls made of Nanakshahi bricks. The ld. Rent Controller has rightly come to the conclusion that the shop has outlived its life and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The findings of the Ld. Rent Controller on issues No.1 and 2 are not perverse not illegal and the same are affirmed.” In view of the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, I do not find any error in the order of eviction and as such the present revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 31, 2011 JUDGE Vivek