The mere happening of an accident does not give rise to an inference of negligence. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's negligence caused the accident.

D. Raju, C.J.—The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10.7.1998 in Civil Suit No. 96 of 1985, whereunder the suit filed by the appellants claiming recovery of Rs. 10 lacs as damages with interest due thereon from the defendant-respondent came to be dismissed.

2. The case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that they are the owners of the property known as "Boundary Estate" in the revenue estate of Chhota Shimla, that the property was let out to the defendant-respondent on 31.10.1958 by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs for use and purpose of the Medical Department, that at the time of letting out the property, certain furniture, fixtures and fittings were also handed over to the defendant, that afire broke out on the night intervening 22/23.11.1982, as a result of which the building along with the furniture, fixtures and fittings were got burnt and reduced to ashes, which necessitated the filing of the suit for the relief, noticed supra. It was also pleaded before the learned Single Judge that the property stood also acquired after prolonged proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation paid did not include the value of the building, which was gutted in fire in the year 1982 and that the building must have been set on fire either deliberately by the defendant or the persons working under it or a fire occurred on account of deliberate act or negligence on the part of the defendant.

3. The defendant while resisting the suit claim, though admitted that the property with its furniture, fixtures and fittings was taken on rent for the use of the Medical Department, it was reiterated that due to fire, which broke out on the intervening night of 22/ 23.11.1982, the main building along with the furniture, fittings and fixtures were gutted and that the fire accident did not take place either on account of deliberate act or negligence on the part of the defendant or its officers. Per contra, according to the defendant, the plaintiffs themselves have been grossly negligent in proper upkeep of the building since in spite of repeated demands made in this regard, they failed to carry out necessary repairs from time to time and the building as well as the furniture, fixtures and fittings were quite old and dilapidated and as a matter of fact had also out lived their utility and consequently the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages from the defendant.

4. On the side of the plaintiffs, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and for the defendant, DWs-1 to 3 were likewise examined. Documentary evidence was also marked on either side. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Judge, who framed two issues for consideration as to (1) whether the premises in question caught fire due to wilful acts of omission and commission and negligence on the part of defendant No. 1 and the said defendant is liable to make good the loss? and (2) whether the plaintiffs have suffered a loss of Rs. 10 lacs, as alleged? recorded a finding that the plaintiffs neither averred even a single word as to the cause of fire in order to prove any such cause much less stated anything to attribute such cause to the defendant. The learned Single Judge, in the course of analysing the evidence on record pointed out that; the materials on record over-whelmingly proved that it is the plaintiffs, who failed to discharge and perform their duties and obligations imposed under the law in the matter of keeping the building rented in good and tenantable condition by carrying out periodical repairs, and that in spite of demands made as shown by Exs. DW-6/A to DW-6/F, during the period between 1966 to 1981, they were indifferent and did not carry out their obligations, and that though the plaintiffs initially attempted to place reliance on the inquiry report of the City Magistrate, Shimla, who was appointed to inquire in