Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pt. Rama Kant vs Balwant Singh And Ors. on 20 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)123PLR535
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. The present revision petition has been filed by Pt. Rama Kant, hereinafter described as "the petitioner" directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Ferozepur, dated 05.10.1981 and of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, dated 27.8.1984. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction and the said order was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed eviction application against the respondents with respect to the property which is a shop. The ground of eviction which survive for consideration was that, as per the petitioner, the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and is required for reconstruction.
3. The petition for eviction was contested. It was denied that the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As per respondents, the suit property is in a good shape and is fit for human habitation.
4. The learned Rent Controller had framed issues and concluded that the evidence of the petitioner that the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation cannot be believed.
5. The petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority agreed with the finding and concluded that merely because it is an old building is no ground to hold that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The report of the building expert produced by the petitioner was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition has been filed.
6. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority had rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of evidence available. Merely because the building is old, by itself is no ground to presume or assume that it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is always the condition of the building which is material. Age by itself is not an indicating factor as to if the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
7. During the pendency of the present revision petition, an application was filed for appointment of the Local Commissioner asserting that the roof of the shop in dispute had fallen. The Local Commissioner had been appointed and with respect to the property in question the report reads as under:-
"That in C.R. No. 3260 of 1984 the shop is under the tenancy of Surinder Singh. He was present at the spot, he told me that the part of the roof of veranda had fallen. He had covered the roof of the veranda with tarpaulin. The roof is there with the help of ballas, which are in broken conditions and are supported by the ballies from floor. The general condition of the shop is dilapidated one as there are cracks in the walls of whole building including the roof of the veranda. The building is apparently very old and mud mortar is coming out of bricks. The respondent is continuing his business under the veranda and in the remaining part of the building he has stored his goods inside the building.
The roof of the back room of the building has been found fallen. The respondent told me that his room was in the possession of the landlord petitioner and they have no concern with the room."
8. This was a subsequent event that had taken place. The law is well settled that subsequent events can be taken into at the time of grant of final relief. In Ramesh Kumar v. Keshoram, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 700, the Supreme court observed in para 4 thus:
"The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But, this is subject to exception. Whatever subsequent events of facts or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the Court is not precluded from taking a 'cautions cognizance' of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief."
9. This Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh v. Murari Lal, (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 529 was concerned with almost similar situation as in the present case. Herein also, eviction application had been filed on the ground that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The revision petition remaining pending for a number of years. Local Commissioner was appointed who supported the plea of the landlord. No objections had been filed. This Court took note of the subsequent events and passed the eviction order. The same principle that the subsequent event can be taken note of was looked with approval by the Delhi High Court in the case of Anand Gopal Jhingran and Ors. v. K.D. Beri, 1996(1) Rent Law Reporter 181.
10. In the present case also, as referred to above, a Local Commissioner had been appointed and he had submitted his report. No objections have been filed. The same must be accepted as correct. Necessarily, it must be taken that the main shop has fallen.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, urged that this does not tantamount to saying that the entire building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. He referred to the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Surinder Nath v. Shri P.N. Dhawan, 1981(1) Rent Law Reporter 755. This was a decision rendered under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971. The Court held that the mere fact that building has outlived its economic life does not necessarily mean that it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. That, indeed, is not the question in controversy in the present case in hand and, therefore, it goes without saying that the cited decision is of no avail to the respondent.
12. However, it was urged relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1432, that if the root of one of the rooms had fallen is no ground to hold that the remaining building has also damaged and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, Supreme court held as under:-
"......In that situation, the High Court held that what was relevant for consideration for pasting an order of eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) was the condition of the building viewed as a whole and not a parts or blocks. In the instant case, the admitted position is that except for the roof in one of the rooms falling down, no other damage to the building was noticed and in such circumstances, there is no scope for holding that a substantial or major part of the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and hence an order of eviction was called for. It is, therefore, obvious, that the ratios laid down in the earlier decisions were not at all attracted to the facts of the case and the High Court had wrongly applied them because of its erroneous assumptions."
13. A perusal of the decision in Piara Lal's case (supra) reveals that, indeed, it has no application in the peculiar facts of the present case. In the present case in hand, it has been found that the tenanted premises which comprised of the shop had fallen. The respondent tenant was functioning from the verandah and the condition of the same was not too good. Even the back room which was not let out had also fallen. It clearly shows that the property in question during the event that had taken during the pendency of the revision petition is in dilapidated condition. The main shop has already fallen. It must be held that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
14. More close to the facts of the present case is also the decision of this Court in the case of Mathra Dass v. Prithvi Raj, (1999-1)121 P.L.R. 549. It was found that upper portion of the shop had fallen down and in that view of the mater, this Court passed an order of eviction holding that the property in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller and the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority cannot be sustained.
For these reasons, the revision-petition is allowed and an order of eviction is passed against the respondents giving them two months time to vacate the demised premises.