The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an eviction order. The lower courts held premises unsafe and unfit for habitation based on expert and municipal testimony, finding no merit in the tenant's appeal.
The appeal was dismissed; eviction order upheld.
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. 5819 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5819 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2011
M/s Ram Saroop & Co.
.. Petitioner
VS.
Ram Saroop Arora
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
**Mr. M.S. Sachdev, Advocate for the caveator. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Both the Courts below, pursuant to a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, by the respondent, have ordered the eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the ground floor of the building in dispute, on the ground of its being unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
Heard.
The eviction of the petitioner was sought by the respondentlandlord on the ground that the building in dispute, of which petitioner is tenant on the ground floor, is not fit for human habitation. It is apparent from the records that a notice was issued to the land-lord, by the Municipal Corporation, for vacation of the disputed property since it was found to be dangerous for human habitation. Both the Courts below, on the strength of testimony of PW1 Parmod Bhardwaj, Building Expert, through whom the respondent-landlord got the building in dispute inspected, corroborated with the statement of PW3 Ashwani Kumar, Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation, who both deposed about the dilapidated condition of the
2
Civil Revision No. 5819 of 2011
building in dispute and not fit for human habitation, coupled with the statement of landlord himself, concurrently held that the premises in question are not fit for human habitation. Even otherwise, except his own self serving statement, petitioner-tenant failed to adduce any other evidence to rebut the stand taken by the land-lord. The findings arrived at by the Courts below are neither illegal nor perverse and it cannot be said that the same are based on no evidence. The instant petition, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
October 13,2011 Jiten
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the eviction order passed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on grounds of unfit premises is illegal or perverse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Ram Saroop & Co.
Ram Saroop Arora
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
