C.R. No.1902 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No.1902 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2010 Walaiti Ram ....Petitioner Versus Rajesh ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Ms. Jatinderjit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J. Present revision is filed under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 1949 Act), challenging judgements dated 9.2.2004 passed by the Rent Controller and dated 1.10.2008 passed by the Appellate Court. Both the Courts below directed eviction of the petitioner – tenant on the ground that property in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that petition under C.R. No.1902 of 2009 2 Section 13 of the 1949 Act, was filed by the landlord against the tenant on two grounds (i) tenant is in arrear of rent since February, 1989 (b) that the entire house is 100 years old building, portion shown in red colour has already collapsed and the remaining portion is collapsing. There are big cracks in the entire building. Tenant – petitioner herein contested the claim of the landlord by filing written statement. Petitioner – tenant contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them in respect of the demise premises and the tenant is not in arrear of rent. It is also denied that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller found that there is relationship of landlord and tenant, however, did not agree with the landlord that any arrear of rent since February, 1989 is due towards the tenant. The Rent Controller after discussing entire evidence on record, has recorded finding of fact that in the present case roof as well as_front portion of the property in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Wife of the tenant has fallen down from the roof of the building and suffered injuries. Having found the building in dilapidated condition and unsafe and unfit for human habitation, petition filed by the landlord was allowed and eviction of the tenant was directed. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement of the Rent Controller dated 9.2.2004, tenant – petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court has observed that the tenant has admitted that front portion of the building has fallen down. It is further observed by the Appellate Court that wife of C.R. No.1902 of 2009 3 the tenant fell down from the roof and suffered injuries and succumbed to her injuries. The Appellate Court having found that the building is in dilapidated condition and unsafe and unfit for human habitation, dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner – tenant vehemently argued that the landlord – respondent is claiming to be owner of the property in dispute pursuant to the sale deed dated 5.8.1996 executed by the previous landlord Chaman Lal. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the sale deed it is not proved that Chaman Lal transferred the property in dispute in favour of the respondent – landlord. She further argued that sale-deed is about the property which is far far away from the disputed property. I have perused the description of the property given in the sale deed and the description of the property given in the petition filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act. Having compared both, this Court is of the opinion that in the sale deed and in the application filed under Section 13 of the 1949 Act, description of the property is the same and identical. Hence, it cannot be said that the sale-deed is in respect of any other property which is far far away from the property in dispute. In the present case, previous owners Chaman Lal and Naresh Ohri could be the best persons to tell that they have not transferred the properties in dispute in favour of the present landlord - owner. Tenant has no right to challenge the title of the respondent, which could be challenged by the previous landlord-owner. In the opinion of this Court, orders impugned are based on the material available on record. No illegality or perversity is pointed out in the C.R. No.1902 of 2009 4 judgements impugned. The petition is devoid of merits and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 14.07.2010 sk.