ABDUL WAHAB Vs. A SANTHANA MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the tenant aggrieved by the order dated 16.7.1997 in M.P. No. 104 of 1995 in R.C.A. No. 684 of 1993. The respondent-landlord has filed petition for eviction on the ground of demolition, under Section 14(1)(b). According to him the condition of the building is very bad and it requires demolition immediately. Exhibits like photographs and also permission from the Corporation were filed to show that the building was in a very bad condition and permission was also granted to him for demolition of the above building. The petitioner has contended that the building was a new one aged about 11 years only and there is no bona fide need for eviction. The Trial Court has dismissed the petition of the landlord. As against the order passed by the (sic) rejecting the claim of the landlord, the petitioner (landlord) has filed the appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal is before the appellate authority now. At this stage he had filed a petition M.P. No. 104 of 1995 for appointment of an advocate commissioner for the purpose of inspecting the building and noting the conditions of the building. The appellate authority has allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant has come to this Court. There was sufficient evidence before the Rent Controller for rejecting the claim of the landlord for demolition. When the petitioner has examined an Engineer, nothing prevented the respondent also from having the help of a engineer and examine him after getting a report from him for the purpose of showing that the condition of the building is very bad.

(2.) IT is seen from the order of the Rent Controller that the petitioner has engaged an engineer and he has filed a report. He was also examined before the Rent Controller. While things stood thus, what prevented the respondent from engaging as Engineer and giving evidence in this case is not explained. On the other hand he has chosen to produce photographs before the Rent Controller. Further the person who took the photographs was not examined. Normally in the proceedings before the Rent Controller for demolition under Section 14(i)(b) it is the usual practice for the parties to engage their engineers and have them examined also. After having failed to do so, it is not open to him to complain that there was no alternative for him to prove the condition of the building. Even now, it is open to the respondent to examine an Engineer, after having him engaged and making necessary inspection of the building. From the order passed by the Rent Controller it is seen that after having failed to lead sufficient evidence the respondent has chosen to file the petition only in the appeal for the appointment of commissioner. The reason given by the appellate authority is that since the Court is not in a position to make inspection there is justification for appointment of a Commissioner. This view is not proper. It is for the parties to lead evidence to establish their cases and it is not for the Court to make inspections and appraise the facts for itself. Especially in this case, the Commissioner's evidence cannot stand when an Engineer has already been examined and he has given his opinion, because expert evidence is always preferable to the evidence of an ordinary person. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the order of the Appellate Authority is not sustainable. Hence, it is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, it is open to respondent to file a petition before the appellate authority for this purpose of examination of expert witness like engineer. There will be no orders as to costs. Petition allowed.