Civil Revision No.512 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.512 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:29.01.2009 Parkash .............. Petitioner Vs. Jaswant Singh etc. .............Respondents Present: Mr. R.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the building is unsafe and unfit fur human habitation. The Courts below relied on the evidence of the party as well as the evidence of an expert PW-2 to come to the conclusion that the building was not in a fit state for continued occupation by the tenant. The landlord had also placed on record photographs relating to the property which brought out the decrepit condition of the building and that the walls were dampened and there had been cracks at the ceiling and in the walls. 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner assails the findings on the ground that report made a reference to the occupation of a person by name Paras Nath, while the tenant was Parkash and evidently the report referred to some other property and it could not have been relied upon. His further contention was that the photographs which were exhibited had not been marked through the photographer and the report which had been prepared along with photographs Ex.Y/3 ought not to have been taken on record without examining the person who drew up the report. Civil Revision No.512 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 3. The strenuous contentions of the learned counsel do not, in my view, carry weight, if we examine the fact that the property in possession of the tenant was a portion of a larger building and the report makes a reference to the condition of the whole building of which the property in the possession of the tenant was a part. The photographs themselves would not be decisive but it was not shown to me to have been suggested that the photographs did not refer to the petition mentioned premises at all. The condition of the building has been found to be so dangerous as to cause damage to human life and the Courts below have also observed that the tenant had also failed to rebut the evidence tendered on the side of the landlord. 4. There is no circumstance available to this Court to take a view different from how the matter has been dealt with by the authorities below. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 29, 2009 Pankaj*