Dismissed

Pritam Kaur v. Suresh Kumar

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2008CR/4375/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an eviction revision petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Upholding lower courts' findings, the judge rejected the landlady's expert testimony as unprofessional and reliable the tenant's expert report, concluding no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no interference warranted in the lower courts' finding that the premises were not unsafe.

Pritam Kaur Vs Suresh Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

¶4

Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision: 5.12.2008

Pritam Kaur

…Petitioner

Versus

Suresh Kumar

... Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶14

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.

¶15

Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, appearing for the petitionerlandlady 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

¶16

Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008

¶17

¶18

that the building is not unsafe and unfit for human habitation, can be assailed before this Court.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Civil Revision No. 4375 of 2008

¶25

¶26

Therefore, no interference is warranted while exercising the revisonal jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶27

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 5, 2008 “ DK ”

Pritam Kaur v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Kaur v. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mittal Trading Co. Bagh Jhanda Singh & Ors. Vs Mohan Lal and Ors.

Sudesh Vs Lashkar Singh

Krishan Lal Vs Kunta Devi and Anr.

Tarlok Kumar Vs Shakti Kumar Markan and Ors.

Bharpur Sngh Vs Governing Body of R K S D Sr. Sec. Public School

M/S Barista Coffe Co. Ltd. Vs Jagdish Arora & Anr.