SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Balwant Singh (Dead) by Lrs.
Vs.
Rama Kant (Dead) through Lrs.
C.A.No.6579 of 1999
(Shivaraj V. Patil and D. M. Dharmadhikari JJ.)
04.02.2004
The Order of the Court is as follows
1. In this appeal, filed by the tenant, the order passed by the High Court in a
revision petition filed by the landlord reversing the order passed by the
appellate authority, affirming the order made by the Rent Controller, is under
challenge. Initially, the landlord filed a petition seeking eviction of the
tenant on various grounds but later it was confined to only one ground, namely,
that the premises in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on finding that the
building was not unfit and unsafe for human habitation in the light of the
material placed before him. The appellate authority, in the appeal filed by the
landlord, did not find any good ground to disagree with the finding recorded by
the Rent Controller.
2. The landlord filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the
correctness and validity of the order passed by the appellate authority
concurring with the finding recorded by the Rent Controller. During the
pendency of the revision petition, a portion of the building fell down. On that
account, the landlord made an application seeking appointment of a local
commissioner, which was acceded to. The local commissioner, after inspection of
the spot, made the report. The High Court, looking to the report of the local
commissioner and considering the respective contentions urged on behalf of the
parties, came to the conclusion that the premises has become unfit and unsafe
for human habitation. In the view the High Court took, the revision petition
was allowed passing an order against the tenant and reversing the order passed
by the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the appellate authority
3. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellants-tenant urged that merely because a portion of the verandah in the premises has fallen down was not sufficient to hold that the entire building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation; the appellants are occupying the entire premises and using the major portion thereof for strong articles and are carrying on the business in the verandah; and the High Court was not right in observing that objections were not filed to the report submitted by the local commissioner. In short, according to the learned counsel, the High Court was not right and justified in setting aside the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below, that too, exercising revisional jurisdiction.
4. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions
supporting the impugned order.
5. The High Court, in the impugned order, has re-produced the material portion
of the report of the local commissioner. As can be seen from the report, part
of the roof of the verandah has fallen down; the general condition of the shop
is dilapidated as there are cracks in the walls of the whole building,
including the roof of the verandah; the building is apparently very old and mud
mortar is coming out of the bricks; the tenant is continuing his business in
the verandah and in the remaining part of the building, he has stored his goods
inside the building; the roof of the back room of the building has been found
fallen although it is stated that the room was in the possession of the
landlord. Since the condition of the building has deteriorated and portion of
the building fell down during the pendency of the proceedings before the High
Court itself strengthens the case of the landlord that the building was not in
a good condition and was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Coupled with
this and looking to the report of the local commissioner, it is clear that not
only the verandah where the actual business is carried on has fallen down, the
entire building is old and cracks also are developed. It is also noticed that
the building was constructed of mud and mortar. On overall assessment, the High
Court, on fact, concluded that the building in question is unfit and unsafe for
human habitation. The argument on behalf of the appellants that the concurrent
findings could not be reversed will not be of much help in this case. It is not
a question of concurrent finding in the sense that the condition of the
building, as noticed by the local commissioner, is a subsequent event. The fact
remains that the High Court found that the building was unfit and unsafe for
human habitation, looking to its condition. In this view of the matter, we do
not find any good ground to disturb the impugned order. Hence, finding no merit
in the appeal, it is dismissed.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
reasonable time may be granted to the appellants to vacate the premises in
question. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the same saying the
appellant has already secured an alternate shop. He, however, submitted that he
will not take any action for a period of one month from today to enable the
appellants to shift by removing their articles. This submission is placed on
record.
7. No costs.