In this revision, the High Court upheld eviction of a tenant under the Haryana Urban Rent Control Act on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, finding the lower courts factual findings conclusive.
Revision dismissed; eviction order upheld against tenant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5530 of 1999 Date of decision:23.04.2009
Pyare Lal
...Petitioner
versus
Krishan Lal and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karamvir Singh Kang with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Mr.Divanshu Jain and Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocates, for the respondents.
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
against the tenant in an action taken by the landlord under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on three grounds but the ground that survived for consideration was in favour of the landlord which was the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The eviction was made on a consideration of the reports of a Commissioner who had inspected the property and found that some repair work had been done and by his inspection, it was clear that the plastering on walls had been undertaken just a few days before his visit and that the building was not safe and it was unfit for human
Civil Revision No.5530 of 1999 - 2 -
habitation. Apart from this evidence, there was evidence of an expert who was examined as PW-5 who had given his evidence with reference to a report which was exhibited as PW-4/A and the plan PW-4/B that the tenanted portion of the property was falling and the remaining portion of the property had completely fallen and had become vacant. The expert had also opined that some repairs had been undertaken by the tenant which according to him on his enquiry to the tenant was done by him to prevent the roof from falling down completely.
are assailed by the learned counsel for the tenant on the ground that the first report which was given after an inspection by a Local Commissioner had not stated anywhere about the condition of building except that on inspection of the inner rooms, he found that “some of the karries of the roof were bending” and otherwise he did not notice anything more in those rooms. He had generally observed that there was no outlet on the roofs for rainwater to drain and that feature itself could endanger the life of both the roofs in the near future. Learned counsel's objection to the report of the second Commissioner was that the Commissioner had inspected the premises in yet another civil suit but the Commissioner himself had admitted that he was not an expert himself and he had no knowledge about the nature of repairs that had been done. According to the learned counsel, the report was not helpful since no more than plastering of the walls noted to have been done was made and there was no clear evidence as to the fact that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Adverting to the evidence of PW-5, learned counsel
Civil Revision No.5530 of 1999 - 3 -
submitted that an expert was not competent to elicit any evidence from the parties and the report which makes a reference to the so-called admission by the tenant that he had carried out repairs to prevent the roof from falling was inadmissible. According to him, there should be an independent proof that the building was unfit.
Civil Revision No.5530 of 1999 - 4 -
age, it is inconceivable that a portion of the building alone had a structural integrity to weather the onslaught of time and space. If the building has survived without the walls collapsing all the way, it is evident that the tenant had reasons to protect himself by appropriate repairs. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to substantiate as to how and in what manner the repair is done and whether he put the landlord on notice before any such repairs were undertaken. It was for the tenant to explain the necessity of having to make such unilateral repairs without the concurrence of the landlord which is impermissible under the scheme for the Act.
Civil Revision No.5530 of 1999 - 5 -
decisions as laying down any law differently from how the Courts below have dealt with the issues.
Civil Revision No.5530 of 1999 - 6 -
whole cannot be in danger. It could never be a matter of a proposition of law that the condition of the rest of the building cannot determine the quality of the construction in the hands of the tenant which is a part of the rest. I therefore do not find support from the two decisions referred to by the learned counsel as laying down propositions of which shall apply to all types of situations.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE
23.04.2009 sanjeev
3 issues framed by the court
Whether eviction order on ground of building being unfit and unsafe stands to be upset on appeal.
Whether condition of rest of building cannot determine quality of construction in hands of tenant.
Whether Court below could re-appraise question of fact regarding fitness of building.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Mahavir Jain Shoe Store, Khanna Versus Dr. Gian Chand LoombaReferred¶26
M/s Mahavir Jain Shoe Store, Khanna Versus Dr. Gian Chand Loomba, 2001 PLR 35
Mohinder Pal Versus Hari DasReferred¶26
Mohinder Pal Versus Hari Das, 2003 PLR 563
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pyare Lal
Krishan Lal
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
