BALJIT KAUR Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the orders dated 4.11.2011 and 3.1.2012 vide which her prayer for additional evidence has been declined.

(2.) The petitioner who is the landlady initiated proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the respondent and one of the grounds for eviction was that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The prayer has been declined on the ground that the application was moved belatedly and without showing as to how relevant evidence could not be produced by the petitioner despite exercising due diligence.

(3.) On due consideration, I am of the considered opinion that simply because there is a delay in filing the application, it should not form the sole basis of the reason to decline the prayer of the kind which has been made by the petitioner. The issue in question is whether the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation which has serious repercussions on the occupants of the building, therefore, the Courts have to be more alive to this situation to ensure that proper appraisal of the issue takes place. A casual approach in these kinds of matters where the status of the building and its capability to exist are issues which can have a telling effect on the occupants and even the neighbourhood.