Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daulat Ram And Anr. vs Pt. Laxmi Narain And Ors. on 2 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR495
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J.
1. Petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the authorities under the Act whereby his petition for ejectment of the tenant, interalia, on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was dismissed.
2. Respondents are tenant of the premises on the first floor of the building owned by the petitioners, consisting of two rooms and bathrooms. The petitioners have alleged that the respondents had demolished 3/4th portion of the roof of the latrine without their consent and started construction of the said portion. But on the intervention of the petitioners, the construction was stopped. It was alleged that the tenant now threatened to use other latrine meant for the exclusive use of the petitioners. Respondents denied the allegation and stated that the premises are quite fit for human habitation and the story regarding its being in dilapidated condition is concocted one. Respondent No. 1 denied that they ever demolished the roof of the latrine and also stated that he is law abiding citizen and is father of young daughters and cannot think of indulging in any dispute.
3. During the course of trial, one of the petitioners Daulat Ram appeared as AW3 and also produced draftsman who had prepared site plan of the premises tenanted to the respondents as well as premises owned by the petitioners. Petitioners have also produced AW2-Nand Lal retired Executive Engineer who has prepared report Ex.A3 regarding the condition of the building in dispute. The only ground of ejectment which was raised during the hearing of the present revision petition is that the tenant is liable to be evicted as the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The reliance has been placed upon the report of the Expert Ex.A3 and on the site plan Ex.A2. Apart from the same, the statement of the landlord petitioners before the Courts below has been relied upon. It has been found by the Courts below that the expert produced by the petitioners has intentionally withheld report regarding the age of the building and the nature of the material used for the construction. It has been found by the learned Rent Controller that the petitioners have not given any specific detail of any alleged damage of the building either in pleadings or in evidence. No evidence has been led to prove that the roof of the latrine as pleaded was demolished by the tenant on 28.11.1981. Daulat Ram appearing as AW3 has not said a word in this respect.
4. Both the Courts have found that there was problem of water logging in the area of Muktsar and because of that certain cracks have appeared. There is no evidence such cracks have endangered the entire building of which tenant is in possession in part. It has been held in Division Bench of this Court in Sardarni Sampran Kaur and Anr. v. Sant Singh and Anr., A.I.R. 1982 Pb. & Hr. 245 that until and unless there is an evidence to the effect that the entire integrated building is in dilapidated condition, no order of ejectment can be passed. The petitioner has led evidence regarding unfit condition of the premises in dispute in possession of the tenant alone. In the absence of any evidence to the effect that the entire building is in dilapidated, condition, the tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted. Both the Courts have discussed the entire evidence and returned a finding that the building is not in a dilapidated condition and have not become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
5. In view thereof, I do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the petitioner is dismissed.