Suresh Kumar vs Devi Bala Sundri Mandir, Dera ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1149 P&H

                                                                              119



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


                                        Civil Revision No. 686 of 2022 (O&M)

                                                 Date of Decision: 03.03.2022


Suresh Kumar
                                                                ... Petitioner(s)

                                        Versus

Devi Bala Sundri Mandir, Dera Ladwa
                                                              ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate
             for the petitioner(s).

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The petitioner herein is a tenant. In an eviction petition, filed

under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1973 Act"), filed by the landlord, the

petitioner has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller vide order

dated 25.07.2017, which was, later on, affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2 Undoubtedly, the Appellate Authority has partially reversed the

findings of the Rent Controller on the ground that the Mohitmim of the

religious institution cannot get the tenant of the religious property evicted on

the ground of bonafide requirement of his grandson. However, the Rent

Controller and the Appellate Authority have, concurrently, found that the

tenanted premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and

are required to be pulled down for reconstruction. The Rent Controller

appointed the Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) to inspect the building and

submit a report. The Provincial Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R),

1 of 4

Ladwa, submitted a report to the effect that there are some cracks on the

backside and left side of the wall. It has further been reported that the

condition of the floor of the shop is also in a dilapidated condition and the

roof of the premises is made of second class mud roofing with wooden

battens and some battens have suffered damage due to white ants and can

collapse at any time. It was also reported that the structure seems to be very

old and constructed with mud mortar, which is seldom seen now-a-days. The

aforesaid Local Commissioner appeared in the witness box as PW.7 and

proved his report. The learned counsel representing the tenant despite an

opportunity to cross-examine, failed to impeach the credibility of his report.

The tenant did not examine any expert to prove that the building is fit for

human habitation.

3. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner, at length

and with his able assistance, perused the paper-book as well as the

photocopy of the record, which has been produced by the learned counsel.

4. The learned counsel, while relying upon the judgment passed

by the Supreme Court in Shadi Singh v. Rakha (1992) 3 SCC 55 contends

that if no structural alteration is required and building can be repaired, then

the order of eviction is not appropriate. He further relies upon the judgment

passed in Surinder v. Nand Lal (2018) 2 SCC 717. This Court has carefully

read the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Shadi Singh's case

(supra). In the aforesaid case, on an application filed by the tenant under

Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, the roof

was permitted to be repaired. It was brought on the record that a part of the

roof has been replaced at the cost of ₹ 200/- only. In such circumstances,

2 of 4

the Supreme Court held that if the building is repairable, then the order of

eviction is not justifiable. In the present case, the Local Commissioner was

examined as PW.7. On reading of his cross-examination, it is evident that he

has not given any suggestion that the building is repairable. Furthermore, at

the cost of repetition, the tenant has not examined any Expert to prove that

the tenanted premises can be repaired without pulling it down. Further, in the

present case, the Expert was deputed by the Court. He is assumed to be an

independent Expert. After inspecting the building, he has given a report.

Moreover, after submission of the report in the year 2016, six years have

further elapsed. There is no evidence that the condition of the shop has

improved. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel representing the

petitioner that no application under Section 12 of the 1973 was filed before

the Rent Controller for permission to carry out the repairs.

5. Keeping in the aforesaid facts, the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in Shadi Singh's case (supra) is not applicable. As regards

the judgment passed in Surinder's case (supra), it would be noticed that the

Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority had dismissed the petition

filed by the landlord after recording a finding that the tenanted premises is

not in a dilapidated condition. The Supreme Court, after noticing that the

High Court has limited jurisdiction while hearing the revision petition,

observed that the High Court should not have interfered.

6. In the present case, the position is to the contrary. The Rent

Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have, concurrently, recorded a

finding that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

A five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 has expounded 3 of 4

that in a revisional jurisdiction, the High Court is not expected to interfere

unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the judgments passed by the

Courts are either perverse or there is misreading or non-reading of the

evidence which goes to the root of the matter. In the present case, the

learned counsel representing the petitioner has failed to draw the attention of

the Court to such grounds.

7. In view of the above, no ground to interfere is made out.

Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

8. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge March 03, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

4 of 4