Single-judge order dismissing a revision petition challenging eviction orders against a tenant for unsafe building conditions, upholding the Rent Controller's inspection reports and rejecting requests for further inspection.
Revision petition dismissed; eviction orders affirmed.
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.
C.R. No.1921 of 1994 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.1921 of 1994 (O&M) Date of Decision.30.01.2013
Baru son of Ram Niwas (died) through LRs
.....Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Chand and others
.......Respondents
Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Sahota, Advocate and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
C.M. No.29949-CII of 2012
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 84 days in
filing the application for restoration is condoned.
Application is allowed.
C.M. No.29950-CII of 2012
For the reasons stated in the application, order dated 08.08.2012 passed by this Court is recalled and the revision petition is restored to its original number. The revision petition is taken up for final hearing.
Application is allowed.
C.R. No.1921 of 1994
C.R. No.1921 of 1994 (O&M)
-2-
was ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court. There were two grounds that were urged; one was for nonpayment of rent and another that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenant had tendered the rent during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore, the case became relevant for consideration only as regards the latter ground.
C.R. No.1921 of 1994 (O&M)
-3-
some of the important aspects regarding replacement of battens in the property. He also observed that flooring of the back portion was found to be below the level of the front portion and this was also not brought out in the report filed by the tenant. On comparison of the reports, he found that the building had become very old and the planks and karees had appeared weak and eviction should, therefore, follow.
C.R. No.1921 of 1994 (O&M)
-4-
has stood for 20 years without any further damage and that itself must be taken as proof for integrity of the building. It would amount to an illogical argument that in every case where a landlord seeks for ejectment on the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe, the pendency of proceedings for long number of years without any further serious damage to any party by falling of the roof or any of such event to be cited as a reason for a Court to find that there is no cause of action for ejectment. We cannot allow for parties to plead the pendency of proceedings as justification to make an inference about the quality of the building.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE
January 30, 2013 Pankaj*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have ordered a personal inspection of the building despite the Rent Controller having done so.
Whether the reversal of the eviction order should be granted because the building risk had not materialized in 20 years.
Baru son of Ram Niwas (died) through LRs
Kailash Chand and others
K. KANNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
