Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punam Chand vs Kailash Chand And Ors. on 8 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR176
Author: V.S. Aggarwal
Bench: V.S. Aggarwal
ORDER V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. By this common judgment two Civil Revision Petitions No.3798 and 3799 of 1987 can conveniently be disposed of together as both the revisions are directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hansi, dated 29.8.1986 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Hisar, dated 16.11.1987.
2. The relevant facts are that Kailash Chand and others filed a petition for eviction under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act')- The eviction of the petitioners was claimed with respect to the suit premises. The two grounds which survive for consideration were as to if the property in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and whether the petitioner without the written consent of the respondent-landlords had changed the user of the property. The respondents claim was that initially the tenant had started the business of timber under the name and style of Radha Swami Timber Store but presently he has started the business of repairing the engines of tractors etc besides working as carpenter and fabrication of door frames etc. The other grounds of eviction did not find favour with the learned Appellate Authority nor there was any controversy raised regarding the same in this Court.
3. The petitioners had contested the eviction application with respect to the surviving grounds of eviction. It is denied that the suit property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was also denied that the user of the premises has been changed contrary to the purpose of letting.
4. Both the learned Rent controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority found that the property in question had been let for sale of the timber. Subsequently, a lathe machine had been installed. The engines were being repaired and that this was a change of the user. It was also held that the suit property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
5. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition has been filed.
6. Talking up the first ground as to whether the suit property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the findings of facts arrived at by the learned Rent controller and the learned Appellate Authority are that the floor had been damaged; the walls are also in a bad shape and cracks had appeared therein. The learned Appellate Authority recorded that the landlord has not to wait until the entire building crumbles and reliance was placed on the report of the building expert Sh. Ganga Ram Maini, AW5. The said finding of fact has not been shown to be erroneous. It is based on appreciation of facts and the material on the record. Not only that, during the pendency of the revision petition, it was brought to the notice of the Court that a part of the building even has crumbled and fallen. There was no specific denial in this regard. Once the finding of fact had been arrived at on the basis of the evidence on the record as well as its proper appreciation, there is no ground to interfere.
7. As regards the other ground of eviction, it was not in controversy that the property in dispute had been let for doing the timberwork. As mentioned above, a lathe machine had been installed. There is no written permission in this regard. It was disputed and otherwise also the authorities below have clearly held that the licence taken for sale of timber has since been surrendered. The business that now is being carried in the suit property is totally different. The lathe machine was installed for manufacturing of certain other articles totally unconnected with the sale of timber. It was, therefore, rightly held that there has been a change of user, which is contrary to the original purpose of letting.
8. For these reasons, both the revision petitions must fail and are accordingly dismissed. The petitioner are granted two months time to vacate the suit premises.