1
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 480 of 2018
SURINDER .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NAND LAL .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 481 of 2018
A N D
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 482 of 2018
J U D G M E N T
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
2
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 1960s1
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
1 Though respondents had disputed the year of construction and according to
them construction was carried out 30-40 years ago only.
3
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.
4
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
been eroded at some places leaving the bricks in the walls as naked and
the naked walls have been eroded leaving their joints and coming out of
the superstructure walls due to sudden dampness, efflorescence in walls
caused by wash/waste water drains passing along with the rear walls of
the shop. It also states that the roof projection deflected and cracks
developed may cause heavy damage due to sudden collapse at any
time. It also states that floor level of the shop is lower than the existing
main road level, thus, attracting dampness from rain water and dry
weather flow. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, no
doubt, the respondents had also examined a retired Engineer as RW-4,
who had filed his affidavit and his report was accepted as R-1.
However, the report filed by RW-4 did not discuss the conditions of the
shops and it only mentioned about the photographs of the roof and
flooring which was taken with the help of a digital camera and the report
also mentioned about Chhajja in the front side stating it to be in a good
condition. He, thus, submitted that the findings of the courts below were
totally perverse which relied upon the report of RW-4 and ignored the
5
report of PW-3.
4) Second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the
subsequent events which happened fortified the report of PW-3
inasmuch as in the year 2012, when the appeal of the appellant was
pending before the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, the
Chhajja had fallen down. This event, according to him, proves that the
premises are in dilapidated condition and unsafe for habitation. He
submitted that even when this fact was brought to the notice of the
Appellate Authority as well as the High Court, these courts have not
taken note of this subsequent development, though they were supposed
to look into the same. On this ground also it was argued that the
findings of the courts below are perverse.
5) In his judgment dated April 30, 2010, the Rent Controller discussed the
expert evidence led by both the parties and after detailed examination of
both the reports, he formed an opinion that the appellant was not able to
prove that the shops were in a dilapidated condition. Discussion on this
aspect runs as follows:
“23. In the opinion of the court, the petitioners have not been
able to prove that the shop is in dilapidated condition. On
perusal of photographs Ex.R3, it is evident that the roof of the
shop has been consisting of wooden battons. It has come in
the cross-examination of PW2 Surender that ever since the
shop has been let out to the respondent, they have never
bothered to get the same repaired or white-washed. Their
own witness of petitioners PW4 Parveen Kumar has also
6
stated in the cross-examination that the shop of Nand Lal
from outside is in good condition. He also stated that
between his shop and the shop of Varinder no other shops is
there and the stairs of his shop are broken and had cracks but
the remaining shop is fine. PW3 Sunil stated in his cross
examination all the four shops where the construction at the
same time. Since PW4 Parveen stated in his
cross-examination that except four stairs his shop is fine and
that all the shops were constructions together, it is improbable
that one shop is about to fall being dilapidated and the other
shop is fine. Beside this, PW1 Sh.R.Punia has stated in his
cross-examination that he has not mentioned in the report the
size of the plaster which has eroded from the walls and at
what places.”
6) Thus, after examining the expert witnesses who are produced by both
sides, the Rent Controller returned the aforesaid findings, which findings
were approved by the Appellate Authority as well in its judgment dated
September 17, 2012. We find that the view taken was plausible view
which cannot be considered as perverse. The revisionary jurisdiction of
the High Court is limited and, therefore, it rightly observed that no
ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the courts
below was made out.
7) Insofar as the contention of the appellant based on alleged subsequent
event is concerned, except arguing that it was taken before the appellate
court as well as the High Court, no material is produced to support this
submission. Grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority or
the copy of the revision petition has not been placed on record.
Moreover, judgments of the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court
7
do not reflect that such a contention was raised before the said courts.
In the absence thereof, the alleged subsequent event cannot be taken
into consideration.
8) We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals which are
accordingly dismissed.
However, if the condition of the premises, as of today, is
dilapidated and the appellant is correct in his submission that the
Chhajja of the premises had fallen down in the year 2012, it would be
open to the appellant to file a fresh petition on the aforesaid ground as
these events would furnish a fresh cause of action to the appellant.
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 01, 2018.
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 480 of 2018
SURINDER .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NAND LAL .....RESPONDENT(S)
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 481 of 2018
A N D
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 482 of 2018
J U D G M E N T
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
2
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 1960s1
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
1 Though respondents had disputed the year of construction and according to
them construction was carried out 30-40 years ago only.
3
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.
4
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
been eroded at some places leaving the bricks in the walls as naked and
the naked walls have been eroded leaving their joints and coming out of
the superstructure walls due to sudden dampness, efflorescence in walls
caused by wash/waste water drains passing along with the rear walls of
the shop. It also states that the roof projection deflected and cracks
developed may cause heavy damage due to sudden collapse at any
time. It also states that floor level of the shop is lower than the existing
main road level, thus, attracting dampness from rain water and dry
weather flow. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, no
doubt, the respondents had also examined a retired Engineer as RW-4,
who had filed his affidavit and his report was accepted as R-1.
However, the report filed by RW-4 did not discuss the conditions of the
shops and it only mentioned about the photographs of the roof and
flooring which was taken with the help of a digital camera and the report
also mentioned about Chhajja in the front side stating it to be in a good
condition. He, thus, submitted that the findings of the courts below were
totally perverse which relied upon the report of RW-4 and ignored the
5
report of PW-3.
4) Second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the
subsequent events which happened fortified the report of PW-3
inasmuch as in the year 2012, when the appeal of the appellant was
pending before the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, the
Chhajja had fallen down. This event, according to him, proves that the
premises are in dilapidated condition and unsafe for habitation. He
submitted that even when this fact was brought to the notice of the
Appellate Authority as well as the High Court, these courts have not
taken note of this subsequent development, though they were supposed
to look into the same. On this ground also it was argued that the
findings of the courts below are perverse.
5) In his judgment dated April 30, 2010, the Rent Controller discussed the
expert evidence led by both the parties and after detailed examination of
both the reports, he formed an opinion that the appellant was not able to
prove that the shops were in a dilapidated condition. Discussion on this
aspect runs as follows:
“23. In the opinion of the court, the petitioners have not been
able to prove that the shop is in dilapidated condition. On
perusal of photographs Ex.R3, it is evident that the roof of the
shop has been consisting of wooden battons. It has come in
the cross-examination of PW2 Surender that ever since the
shop has been let out to the respondent, they have never
bothered to get the same repaired or white-washed. Their
own witness of petitioners PW4 Parveen Kumar has also
6
stated in the cross-examination that the shop of Nand Lal
from outside is in good condition. He also stated that
between his shop and the shop of Varinder no other shops is
there and the stairs of his shop are broken and had cracks but
the remaining shop is fine. PW3 Sunil stated in his cross
examination all the four shops where the construction at the
same time. Since PW4 Parveen stated in his
cross-examination that except four stairs his shop is fine and
that all the shops were constructions together, it is improbable
that one shop is about to fall being dilapidated and the other
shop is fine. Beside this, PW1 Sh.R.Punia has stated in his
cross-examination that he has not mentioned in the report the
size of the plaster which has eroded from the walls and at
what places.”
6) Thus, after examining the expert witnesses who are produced by both
sides, the Rent Controller returned the aforesaid findings, which findings
were approved by the Appellate Authority as well in its judgment dated
September 17, 2012. We find that the view taken was plausible view
which cannot be considered as perverse. The revisionary jurisdiction of
the High Court is limited and, therefore, it rightly observed that no
ground for interference with the finding of fact arrived at by the courts
below was made out.
7) Insofar as the contention of the appellant based on alleged subsequent
event is concerned, except arguing that it was taken before the appellate
court as well as the High Court, no material is produced to support this
submission. Grounds of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority or
the copy of the revision petition has not been placed on record.
Moreover, judgments of the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court
7
do not reflect that such a contention was raised before the said courts.
In the absence thereof, the alleged subsequent event cannot be taken
into consideration.
8) We, therefore, do not find any merit in these appeals which are
accordingly dismissed.
However, if the condition of the premises, as of today, is
dilapidated and the appellant is correct in his submission that the
Chhajja of the premises had fallen down in the year 2012, it would be
open to the appellant to file a fresh petition on the aforesaid ground as
these events would furnish a fresh cause of action to the appellant.
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 01, 2018.
