ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SUNIL MOHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision No.6538 of 2015 (Ashok Kumar v. Sunil Mohan Gupta), Civil Revision No.3209 of 2016 (Sunil Mohan Gupta v. Pankaj Chaurasia), Civil Revision No.5425 of 2015 (Sunil Mohan Gupta v. M/s Ram Chander Narinder Kumar) and Civil Revision No.3209 of 2015 (Sunil Mohan Gupta v. Brij Bhushan). All the abovesaid revision petitions were heard together as landlord in all the petitions is the same. The demised premises in question comprise of small shops/Khokha on property No.3759-61, Hill Road, Ambala Cantt. and the same was let out by the landlord to various tenants. Six petitions were filed by the landlord under Sec. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of all the tenants from the respective demised premises on the ground that the building in question was constructed more than 90 years ago. The same is claimed to be in a dilapidated condition with various rooms forming part of the building on the ground floor as well as on the first floor having already fallen while remaining portions are in a precarious condition. Roof of various rooms are stated to have bent down to a dangerous limit and could collapse at any time, the same have and connected cases [3] wooden Karris with Phattas which are totally lying rotten or eaten away. Projection (Chhajja) of the property in question is also stated to be bent down to a dangerous limit. It is pleaded that during the floods and heavy rains in July, 2010, a major portion of the building including the projection (Chhajja) was broken down and is dangerous to human life. The entire property, it is pleaded, was in a deplorable condition, unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Condition of the structure, it is pleaded, was in such a bad condition that the Municipal Corporation, Ambala issued notices to the petitioner-landlord for demolishing the same to avoid loss of human life. As different portions of the building were in occupation of different tenants, the petitioner-landlord is unable to comply with the notices of the Municipal Corporation. Landlord, it is pleaded, in all the petitions had requested the tenants to vacate the building, but to no effect. Hence, the petitions were filed seeking ejectment of all the tenants. Additional grounds were taken in petition No.28 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.5425 of 2015) to the extent that the tenants therein had acquired possession of another property No.3758, Hill Road, Ambala Cantt., which comprised of two shops, besides, a shop on the main Ambala-Jagadhri Road and they are alleged to be conducting business therein, in the name and style of M/s Parashvanath Traders. It was pleaded that the tenants were merely hanging on to the premises for extraneous considerations as the other shops, which have subsequently been taken by the tenants, were much bigger and sufficiently reasonable for their requirement in the urban area of Ambala. Landlord has also raised the ground of non-payment of rent, besides, the building in question unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Ejectment of the tenants was thus prayed for.

(2.) Petitions were resisted by the tenants. Various preliminary objections were raised in the reply. Averments on merits were controverted. Condition of the building as averred by the landlord was denied. It was contended that the landlord himself is residing in the property in question, therefore, building cannot be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In petition No.106 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.3209 of 2016), it is pleaded by the tenant that he was conducting his business of sale of Pan, Bidi etc. in the wooden khokha provided by the landlord and he was keeping his goods in a portion measuring about 2 ft. x 3 ft. below the staircase. It was contended that the portion (Khokha) which was in his possession, is not a part of the building of the landlord, rather it is on the municipal land. Dismissal of the petitions was prayed for. Learned Rent Controller, Ambala in all the petitions i.e., petition No. 40 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.6538 of 2015) decided on 7/10/2013, petition No.28 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.5425 of 2015) decided on 19/8/2013, petition No.114 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.5426 of 2015) decided on 6/1/2014 and petition No.106 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.3209 of 2016) decided on 27/5/2014, ordered ejectment of the tenants. Appeals were filed by all the six tenants. Two of the appeals were dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ambala. One of the tenants, is in revision before this Court (subject matter of CR No.6538 of 2015) and the other tenant, namely, Brij Bhushan Bajoria whose appeal was dismissed by the learned appellate authority vide decision dtd. 1/8/2015, has accepted the verdict and the proceedings qua him have admittedly become final. In respect to the other petitions i.e., petition No.28 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.5425 of 2015, petition No.114 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.5426 of 2015) and petition No.106 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.3209 of 2016), learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeals filed by the tenants, consequently, dismissing the petitions filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant, primarily on the ground that the landlord himself was living in a portion of the first floor of the building, therefore, it could not be countenanced that the building had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Non-payment of rent was not proved in respect to petition No.28 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.5425 of 2015 and petition No.114 of 2011 (subject matter of CR No.5426 of 2015).

(3.) Civil Revision No.3195 of 2016 filed by the landlord against the order of the learned Appellate Authority allowing the fourth tenant's appeal, was disposed of as infructuous as it was brought to the notice of this Court that the tenant was no longer running his business in a Khokha on the platform of the property in question and it was stated on behalf of the tenant that in case the said tenant is still using electric energy from any meter/sub-meter of the demised premises, the same would be disconnected forthwith. Learned counsel for the landlord (petitioner in three petitions and respondent in one petition) has raised similar arguments in all the petitions to the effect that that the building in question, is proved on record, to be unfit for human habitation. It is likely to collapse at any stage. Reference has been made to report of the building expert, Anil Kumar, Civil Engineer. It is submitted that the reports relied upon by the tenants are not credible inasmuch as the report is not in respect to the entire building as a whole, whereas the reports submitted by the building expert examined by the landlord projects the true picture. Moreover, inspection of the building was conducted in the presence of all the concerned parties. Site-plan and the photographs on record prove that a major portion of the building is in a deplorable state and on the verge of collapse. Furthermore, after the floods which occurred in July 2010, the situation has become even worse. It is contended that there is a real and palpable danger to human life, in case any major natural calamity strikes the area. Notices issued by the Municipal Corporation are duly proved on record, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Appellate Authority, whereby appeals filed by the tenants have been allowed, be set aside and order dtd. 4/8/2015 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, which is the subject matter of CR No.6538 of 2015 be upheld. Mr. S.K.S.Bedi, Advocate, learned counsel for the tenants in all the petitions, vehemently argues that the tenants in this building have been conducting their business for the last so many years. Reports submitted by the expert examined by the landlord are not worthy of any credence, whatsoever. It is submitted that the expert, Anil Malik has talked about mud mortar being used, which in itself is not correct because at the time when the building was constructed, it was the use of Chuna and Surkhi which was prevalent. It is further contended that the report submitted by building expert, Anil Malik is beyond pleadings as there is nothing on record to indicate the number of rooms etc. which are detailed in the said report. Learned counsel for the tenants would further contend that the report, in question, does not specify the exact portion in possession of the various tenants. It is further submitted that notices issued by the Municipal Corporation cannot, in any manner, advance the case of the landlord because there is nothing on record to show that any action, whatsoever, was taken by the Municipal Corporation pursuant to the said notices. Moreover, the notices themselves have not been proved on record by the landlord in accordance with the provisions of law. It is submitted that the said notices are not, per se, admissible on the ground that the report on the basis of which the said notices were issued, is not produced on record. It is submitted that the landlord has admitted that he himself is living on the first floor of the building. Thus, it is not open to him to contend that the building is unfit for human habitation. It is further contended that age of the building by itself is not proof of its health. It is thus prayed that all the revisions petitions filed by the landlord be dismissed and Civil Revision No.6538 of 2015 filed by the tenant be allowed.