1. Eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, on the ground that tenanted premises were in dilapidated condition. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
SURINDER – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NAND LAL – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 480 of 2018 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 481 of 2018 A N D CIVIL APPEAL NO. 482 of 2018
Decided On : 01-02-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
A plausible decision cannot be interfered with.
A ground cannot be taken before the Supreme Court for the first time.
A plausible decision cannot be interfered with.
A ground cannot be taken before the Supreme Court for the first time.
Subject
Property Law - Eviction
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Administration of justice – Decision of court below – Plausible one – cannot be termed perverse – Cannot be interfered with. (Para 6)
(b) Administration of justice – Subsequent event – No evidence that ground of such subsequent event was taken before appellate authority or the High Court – Cannot be taken before Supreme Court. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellant is the owner of the premises having few shops one shop each was let out to the respondents.
The appellant filed eviction petitions against the respondents before the Rent Controller on the ground that the shops which are built up on mud had become unsafe, inhabitable and were in dilapidated condition. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petitions. The appeals preferred by the appellant were also dismissed.
Thereafter, the appellant filed revision petitions, which have also been dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be interfered with.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether lower court findings were perverse for ignoring expert evidence of dilapidated conditions and failing to consider subsequent structural collapse. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Lower courts' findings were based on a plausible view of expert evidence and not perverse; subsequent events lacked supporting material on record. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. A finding of fact based on a plausible view of evidence is not perverse and warrants no interference under limited revisionary jurisdiction. (Para 6 )
5. Appeals dismissed; however, the appellant may file a fresh petition if current conditions provide a fresh cause of action. (Para 8 )
6. When is a finding of fact by lower courts considered perverse enough to warrant interference by a higher court?
A finding of fact is not considered perverse if it is based on a plausible view of the evidence presented, even if an alternative view exists. (Para 6 )
7. Can a court consider subsequent events that occurred after the trial if they were not supported by material evidence on record?
Subsequent events cannot be taken into consideration if no material is produced to support the submission and the lower courts' judgments do not reflect that such contentions were raised. (Para 7 )
8. Does the dismissal of an eviction petition on the ground of dilapidated condition preclude a future petition if the condition worsens?
No, if the condition of the premises becomes dilapidated or structural failures occur after the initial proceedings, such events furnish a fresh cause of action for a new petition. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
These matters were listed for hearing on January 18, 2019. The counsel for the respondents did not appear though the matters were passed over once and were called again for the second time. In these circumstances, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and reserved the judgment. However, in order to give an opportunity, this Court granted one week’s time to the respondents to file their written submissions. Even when more than one week has lapsed, no written submissions have been filed by the respondents. In these circumstances, we have ourselves perused the entire record while considering the submissions of the appellant’s counsel.
2) The appellant herein is the owner of the premises situated in Main Bazar, Old Najafgarh Road, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. In these premises few shops were constructed in mid 1960s [Though respondents had disputed the year of construction and according to them construction was carried out 30-40 years ago only] by the father of the appellant and one shop each was let out by the respondents in these appeals. The premises are governed by the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as per which tenants can be evicted only on certain specified grounds. One of the grounds for eviction is that the premises let out is in dilapidated condition and cannot be repaired/reconstructed without evicting the tenant. The appellant filed eviction petitions against the respondents before the Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh, under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the shops which are built up on mud had become unsafe, inhabitable and were in dilapidated condition. The Rent Controller was pleased to dismiss the eviction petitions after recording a finding that tenanted premises were not in a dilapidated condition. The appeal was preferred by the appellant against the orders of the Rent Controller before the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority under the Act. These appeals were also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed revision petitions, which have also been dismissed by the High Court. Identical orders are passed dismissing these revision petitions and the operative portion of order dated July 09, 2015 passed by the High Court in the revision petitions is as follows:
“In the present case, petitioner had sought ejectment of respondent No.1 from the shop in question on the ground that it had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In this regard, petitioner examined his expert. Respondent No.1 also examined his expert to establish that the premises in question was fit for human habitation. The Courts below after going through the reports of the expert and the photographs, placed on record, came to the conclusion that the premises in question was fit for human habitation. In fact, the shop in question had not been got repaired by the petitioner.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below, is made out.”
3) The learned counsel for the appellant has made twofold submissions. In the first place, it was argued that during the course of the trial, the appellant had placed on record the report of an expert, viz., an Engineer who was also examined as PW-3. He also filed an affidavit stating that he had carried out physical inspection of the shop and gave a detailed report dated March 10, 2006, which was exhibited as Exhibit P-2. The condition mentioned by him finds mention at pages 29 and 30 in paragraph 19 of the judgment dated April 30, 2010 of the trial court.
Relying on that report, learned counsel for the appellant argued that it speaks volumes about the state of existing construction and clearly shows that the shop in question is in a dilapidated condition. It states that cracks have been developed in the superstructure walls, RCC slabs of the stairs, roof projection. It also mentions that cement plaster has
