IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1748-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision : 13.02.2025 LAXMAN KHARADIA DECEASED THR LRS ....Petitioner Versus KAILASH CHAND AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitin Kant Setia, Advocate for respondent No.1/caveator (through V.C.)

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Tenant is in revision petition aggrieved of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar whereby the appeal of landlord was allowed and the tenant has been ordered to be evicted from demised premises on the ground of the same having been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to by their status i.e. the petitioner as tenant and respondent No.1 as landlord.

3. Landlord filed eviction petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner/tenant from the shop bearing No. 537/17 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised premises’). The eviction was sought on the grounds of non- payment of arrears of rent and that the demised premises which is part of a big building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Major portion of the building had already fallen and the remaining portion, thereof including the one in possession of the tenant may fall any time. The mortar has lost strength. The walls have developed cracks. Wooden battens comprising roof of the demised premises are in damaged condition having been eaten by termites and insects.

4. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant claiming that the demised premises was well built pucca shop and is good for next 100 years.

5. On the basis of pleadings, Rent Controller framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected on the ground of arrears of rent as mentioned in para No.3A of the petition? OPP.

2. Whether the premises in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as alleged in Para No.3 of the petition? OPP.

3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus-

standi to file the present petition? OPR.

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR.

5. Relief.”

6. Arrears of rent were tendered and thus the ground w.r.t. non-

payment of arrears of rent ceased to exist.

7. While returning finding on the issue of the demised premises having been rendered unfit and unsafe, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there exists a public drain running outside the shop. The demised premises was on lower level. The rainy water from the drain gets accumulated in the shop. However, the condition of walls was not such that the same would fall. Some of the plaster has been removed. The same can be repaired. Roof has no hole and the same is supported by three iron guarders. Building expert, Sh. B.D. Singh, who was examined by the tenant proved that building was safe. Rent Controller, thus finding that the condition of the demised premises was neither unfit nor unsafe for human habitation, dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord.

8. Dissatisfied landlord preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority. The same was also dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2013 holding that the landlord has failed to prove that the shop in dispute is likely to fall immediately and is beyond repair.

9. Landlord approached this Court by way of CR No.2398 of 2013. This Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 set aside the order passed by Appellate Authority, dated 31.11.2013 and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide the application for additional evidence filed by the landlord and to decide the appeal afresh thereafter.

10. The Appellate Authority after re-appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the demised premises was part of a bigger building. Major portion of the building had already fallen down. It is the instant shop only which is standing. Appellate Authority found that the room on the first floor of the shop in