Vir Parkash vs Usha Rani

Alok Singh, J.

C.R. No.2277 of 2007 (O & M)

Tenant-revisionist has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court u/s 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity ''the Act'') challenging the judgment dated 29.10.2005 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Rent Controller, Hisar as well as judgment dated 24.3.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Appellate Authority, Hisar, whereby both the Courts below have allowed the petition of the landlord, respondent herein, directing eviction of the tenant-revisionist.

Brief facts of the present case are that landlord/respondent filed an eviction petition u/s 13 of the Act on the ground that tenanted building is in a dilapidated condition and it may fall at any time and it is not safe and fit for human habitation.

Petitioner/tenant contested the eviction petition saying that building is quite safe and quite fit for human habitation and there is no danger for human life in the building in question.

Learned Rent Controller in the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2005 has observed that Joginder Kaushik, PW-1, had inspected the spot in the capacity of Local Commissioner issued by the Court and had submitted his report Ex.P1 alongwith prepared site plan Ex.P2 and had noticed vertical corner cracks of � inch wide and � inch deep on entire wall. Local Commissioner also noticed 2/3 white ant eaten wooden planks as shown at the place in the site plan. Local Commissioner further noticed portion of the demolished building. Learned Rent Controller has also observed that expert engaged by the landlord also submitted his report which has duly been proved to the effect that building is unsafe for the human habitation and is in dilapidated condition. Learned Rent Controller further placed reliance on the notice issued by the Municipal Committee, Hisar calling the landlord to demolish the building since it is in the dilapidated condition and unsafe for human habitation. Having considered total material available on record, learned Rent Controller agreed with the contention of the landlord and passed eviction order dated 29.10.2005.

Feeling aggrieved, tenant/petitioner filed statutory appeal which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 113 of 2005. Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned judgment dated 24.3.2007. Learned Appellate Authority also placed reliance on the report of Joginder Kaushik, Advocate (Local Commissioner) appointed by the Court, on the report of the building expert produced by the landlord and on the notice issued by the Municipal Committee, Hisar calling the landlord to demolish the building.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority, tenant/petitioner has approached this Court by way of present revision petition. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/tenant argued that there are two conflicting reports of the building experts, one produced by the landlord and another produced by the tenant. It is further argued that report of building expert produced by the revisionist/tenant is more authentic and it was wrongly ignored by both the Courts below. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/tenant further argued that notice issued by the Municipal Committee, Hisar is not correct and the same was issued on the persuasion of the landlord to create the evidence in the eviction proceedings.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord refuted the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the revisionist and has argued that both the learned Courts below have committed no error of law while placing reliance on the report of the building expert produced by the landlord as well as on the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. He has further argued that Municipal Committee, Hisar has rightly issued notice to the landlord on the ground that building is in dilapidated condition and is unsafe for human habitation.

Section 15(6) of the Act reads as under:

15(6). [The High Court] as revisional authority, may, at any time, on its own motion or on the application of any aggrieved party, made within a period of ninety days, call for and examine the record relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in relation thereto as it may deem fit. In computing the period of ninety days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order shall be excluded.

In the opinion of this Court, revision u/s 15(6) of the Act has limited scope. While exercising the revisional power u/s 15(6) of the Act, this Court is not supposed to reassess the evidence. In revision, only legality and propriety is to be seen. This Court can upset the order/judgment of the Courts below when this Court finds that Court below has committed either jurisdic-tional error or manifest error of law vitiating the order/judgment. Error of law means Court below has proceeded in violation of procedural law depriving litigant to place his case or evidence or inadmissible evidence was accepted or admissible evidence was ignored or order/judgment is totally perverse.

While placing reliance on the report submitted by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, Courts below have not committed any jurisdictional or legal error. In the opinion of this Court, this Court can not, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, weigh the authenticity of reports of two building experts, one filed by the landlord and second filed by the tenant. Once report submitted by the building expert of the landlord has been relied by the Courts below, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to discard the report of the building expert produced by the landlord.

As per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is a strong presumption that Municipal Committee, Hisar after satisfying itself that building is in dilapidated condition and unsafe for human habitation, has issued notice calling the landlord to demolish the building. That presumption u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act has not been rebutted by the tenant by any cogent evidence rather notice of the Municipal Committee is duly supported by the building expert''s report produced by the landlord. No other point is raised.

Orders impugned shall not be executed till 30.6.2011 provided that petitioner furnishes usual undertaking before the learned Rent Controller within two weeks from today to the effect that petitioner shall handover vacant physical possession to the landlord on or before 30.6.2011. Provided further that petitioner pay entire arrears of rent due within two weeks from today and shall keep on paying the assessed rent by the 10th of each and every month.

In the event of non-filing of undertaking or non-payment of rent as submitted hereinabove, orders impugned shall be executable forthwith.

Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed.