BIMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10 7 1998 in Civil Suit No. 96 of 1985, whereunder the suit filed by the appellants claiming recovery of Rs. 10 lacs as damages with interest due thereon from the defendant respondent came to be dismissed.

(2.) The case of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that they are the owners of the property known as "Boundary Estate" in the revenue estate of Chhota Shimla, that the property was let out to the defendant- respondent on 31.10.1958 by the predeces- sor-in-interest of the plaintiffs for use and purpose of the Medical Department, that at the time of letting out the property, certain furniture, fixtures and fittings were also handed over to the defendant, that a fire broke out on the night intervening 22/23.11.1982, as a result of which the building along with the furniture, fixtures and fittings were got burnt and reduced to ashes, which necessitated the filing of the suit for the relief, noticed supra. It was also pleaded before the learned Single Judge that the property stood also acquired after prolonged proceedings for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and the compensation paid did not include the value of the building, which was gutted in fire in the year 1982 and that the building must have been set on fire either deliberately by the defendant or the persons working under it or a fire occurred on account of deliberate act or negligence on the part of the defendant.

(3.) The defendant while resisting the suit claim, though admitted that the property with its furniture, fixtures and fittings was taken on rent for the use of the Medical Department, it was reiterated that due to fire, which broke out on the intervening night of 22/23 11.82, the main building along with the furniture, fittings and fixtures were gutted and that the fire accident did not take place either on account of deliberate act or negligence on the part of the defendant or its officers Per contra, according to the defendant, the plaintiffs themselves have been grossly negligent in proper upkeep of the building since in spite of repeated demands made in this regard, they failed to carry out necessary repairs from time to time and the building as well as the furniture, fixtures and fittings were quite old and dilapidated and as a matter of fact had also out lived their utility and consequently the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damage from the defendant.