IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-1348-2016 (O&M)

Reserved on: 06.05.2025 Pronounced on: 01.07.2025 Rajesh Kumar Ahluwalia ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Anil Kumar & Another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Katoch, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjiv K. Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the landlord against the order dated 02.12.2015 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Ambala allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/Tenant against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller dated 14.03.2014 whereby the Rent Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), had been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner-cum-landlord of the shop bearing No.1132-1133, Block-IV, Railway Road, Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as ‘the demised shop’). The demised shop was previously owned by Prahlad Bhagat, father of the petitioner. Prahlad Bhagat had let out the demised shop to Shiv Parshad, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Shiv Parshad expired and his tenancy rights were succeeded to by the respondents. Prahlad Bhagat sold the demised shop to the petitioner vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.1996; whereafter, Shiv Parshad, and after him the respondents became tenants under the petitioner. The rate of rent was Rs.33/- only per month. The petitioner had filed the present Rent Petition under Section 13 of the Act on dated 13.9.2008 seeking ejectment of the respondents from the demised shop primarily on two grounds: a) that the shop in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and lay in dangerous position and may collapse at any time as roof has gone weak with damp walls and cracks in them; and b) arrears of rent. Vide judgment dated 14.03.2014, Rent Petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the demised shop was found unfit for human habitation. However, the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 02.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioner had been unable to prove that the demised shop was unfit for human habitation. Ground of arrears of rent did not survive as, in the interregnum, the respondent had cleared all the arrears. Hence, present Revision Petition by the landlord.

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Authority was in patent error in holding that the demised shop was fit and safe for human habitation. In doing so, the learned Appellate Authority had ignored cogent and expert evidence on record, indicating to the contrary. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner had examined Civil Engineer A.K. Malik PW1 who had visited the shop and submitted his report (Ex.P1) that the entire building is in dangerous and dilapidated condition and therefore uninhabitable. However, the learned Appellate Authority had not even considered the report, Ex.P1, and discarded it for flimsy and spurious reasons. In fact, even the expert RW1 produced by the respondent had admitted in his cross-examination that there is a horizontal crack in the demised shop. RW1 has further admitted that the building is of second-class construction and that the life of the second-class building is 70-75 years. The photographs submitted by RW1 along with his report (Ex.R1) show that the terrace is in broken condition and that the age of the building is about 70 years. Even otherwise, it is the own admitted case of the respondent that he and his predecessor-in-interest have been in the demised shop since 1940. It is submitted that the shop in question is more than 100 years old. Even the walls of the shop are made of mud mortar, and with Nanak Shahi bricks. Ld. Senior counsel submits that th