SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(P&H) 691

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.K.Jhanji, J.
Bal Kishan
Versus
Raj Kumar
C.R. No. 1163 of 1993,
Decided On : APRIL 29, 1997

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the condition of the building as a whole, including the materials used in its construction, its age, and any damage it has suffered, when determining whether it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

Headnote:

LANDLORD AND TENANT - EJECTMENT - GROUNDS - BUILDING UNFIT AND UNSAFE FOR HUMAN HABITATION - PERSONAL NECESSITY - EVIDENCE - REPORT OF BUILDING EXPERT - INTERPRETATION - SUFFICIENCY - FINDING OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY COURT.

Fact of the Case:

Tenants challenged the order of the Appellate Authority directing their ejectment from the premises on the grounds of the building becoming unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the landlord's personal necessity. The Rent Controller had dismissed the ejectment applications, but the Appellate Authority reversed the decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the Appellate Authority's decision, finding that the building was indeed unfit and unsafe for human habitation based on the report of a Building Expert and photographs showing its dilapidated condition. The court also found that the landlord's claim of personal necessity was bona fide as he did not own any other residential building in the urban area and was living at the sufferance of his mother.

Issues: 1. Whether the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 2. Whether the landlord had a bona fide personal necessity to occupy the premises.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the report of the Building Expert, photographs, and the Rent Controller's inspection note to conclude that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The court held that the material used in the construction of the building was old and the building had suffered significant damage, making it structurally unsafe. 2. The court considered the size of the landlord's family, the fact that he did not own any other residential building in the urban area, and his mother's request for him to vacate her premises to find that the landlord's claim of personal necessity was bona fide.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both revision petitions filed by the tenants, upholding the Appellate Authority's order of ejectment. The tenants were granted three months to vacate the premises upon depositing all rent arrears and filing an undertaking to hand over vacant possession to the landlord.

Judgment

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1163 and 1181 of 1993.

2. Both the revision petitions are by the tenants, directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby they have been ordered to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the landlord requires the same for his personal necessity. Petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1163 of 1993 is occupying the premises on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month, while petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1181 of 1993 is occupying the premises at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. Ejectment of the tenants was sought on the grounds, namely :-

(i) That the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation;

(ii) non-payment of rent;

(iii) personal necessity of the landlord; and

(iv) change of user.

On contest by the petitioners, ejectment applications filed by the landlord were dismissed by the Rent Controller, but in appeal by the landlord, the appellate Authority has set aside the judgment of the Rent Controller and as a consequence thereof, has ordered ejectment of the tenants. Hence, the present revision petitions.

3. The appellate Authority has ordered ejectment of the tenants on two grounds; namely, that the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and, that the landlord requires the premises for his own occupation and for occupation of his family. In order to conclude that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, reliance has been placed by the appellate Authority on the statement of Expert witness, AW 5, examined by the landlord. The Building Expert on inspection of building submitted his report, Exh. AW-5/1. This Expert has opined that the building is not fit for human habitation and is beyond repairs and requires reconstruction. He on inspection has opined that the entire plaster has fallen down and the stones of southern and eastern walls are bulging out. Wooden rafters are damaged. Relevant portion of his report reads as under :-

"Portion marked red (ground floor) in the enclosed plan is occupied by Sh. Bal Kishan. Room No. V is common and is being used as passage and working place by Sh. Gulab Chand also. Construction of the building is very old and it appears that roofs of ground floor except that of entrance and basement were replaced about 60-70 years back. Original roof of entrance and basement are constructed with stone patties resting on walls whereas replaced roofs are constructed with Brick arches in lime mortar supported on R.S. Joists.

Walls 18" thick constructed with slate stone and small brick in lime mortar and plaster with same mortar are in dilapidated condition, stones are missing at places. Due to age lime mortar has lost its adhesive power and pulverizes when pressed between thumb and fingres. Lime plaster has totally crumbled down from external surfaces. Mortar from wall joints has peeled off upto 1" depth at places, stones from east and south wall can be easily picked up with hand. Cracks marked C.C. have developed at places. East wall has bulged and is out of plumb by about 3-1/2".

Wooden lintels provided over Door openings have decayed. Roof at a height of 10 is constructed with brick arches in lime mortar plastered with same mortar supported on R.S. Joists and lime concrete terracing. Lime plaster from the soffits of arches along with mortar from arch joints has totally peeled up in Room Nos. 1, 2 and V. In Room No. 5 bricks have displaced along the joints at places marked red. No comments are offered for Room No. 3 as Plastic cloth ceiling has been provided just to cover up the condition of the roof. Lime concrete terracing is worn out and cracked.

C.G.I. Sheets provided in the shed are very old, rusted and worn out. Wooden purlin provided at one end of the Tin Shed is broken and propped with wooden post marked red.

Flat Brick flooring provided in the rooms is totally broken.

Con




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top