High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the eviction order in a landlord-tenant dispute, declining to reappreciate evidence regarding rent arrears and alleged material impairment of the premises.
Civil Revision No.5460 of 2010 dismissed in limine finding no merit.
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.
Civil Revision No.5460 of 2010 (O&M)
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5460 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: October 14, 2010.
Shri Vaish Sabha (Regd.)
... Petitioner(s)
v.
Hans Raj Mehandiratta & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Prashant Vashisht, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):
Petitioner herein, Shri Vaish Sabha (Regd.), Hansi through its
Vice President instituted an eviction petition against the legal representatives of Shri Harbhagwan, tenant, inducted in a shop belonging to the petitioner-landlord on the ground of arrears of rent and material impairment in the value and utility of the demised premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition vide order dated 29.1.2009. Petitioner also failed in appeal vide order dated 13.4.2010. hence, the present revision petition.
It was pleaded that the tenant was in arrears of rent since April 2007 at the rate of Rs.350/- per month. Since the tenant had tendered the amount of rent as provisionally assessed by the Rent Controller, so this ground lost its sting and was not consequently contested. Regarding second
Civil Revision No.5460 of 2010 (O&M)
-: 2 :-
ground of causing material impairment in the value and utility of the demised premises, only Dev Raj, President and Madan Lal, Vice President of the Sabha entered into the witness box and reiterated the pleadings as made in the plaint and no expert was examined. However, the tenant examined Amrit Goyal, Sub Divisional Officer, PWD (B&R) who stated that due to re-carpeting, level of the road running in front of the shop was raised by the PWD (B&R). This fact was also supported by neighbouring shop-keeper who is also tenant of the petitioner-Sabha. Tenant himself appeared as RW1 and also examined one Rakesh who was tenant in the adjacent shop. The Rent Controller has held that raising the level of the floor of the shop does not amount to diminishing the value and utility of the shop as it was necessary to save the shop from ingress of water and unwanted dust etc. The Appellate Authority has concurred with this finding of fact, therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner while exercising revisional jurisdiction as this Court would be hesitant to reappreciate and re-appraise the entire evidence. Hence, there is no merit in the instant petition. The same is dismissed in limine.
October 14, 2010. kadyan
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can reappreciate evidence to interfere with the rental dispute judgment of the lower courts in revision.
Whether raising the level of the floor of the shop amounts to diminishing its value and utility justifying eviction.
Shri Vaish Sabha (Regd.)
Hans Raj Mehandiratta & Ors.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
