- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ram Nath v. Shri Kanth .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, Shri Kanth, filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner regarding certain premises, alleging that the property had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation due to its dilapidated condition. The property’s structure included roofs made of sirkies and balas, with broken and cracked walls and roofs, some portions having already collapsed. The petitioner contested the eviction, denying the unsafe condition and raising a preliminary objection of res judicata based on earlier eviction petitions that were dismissed. The learned Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction petition, finding insufficient proof that the property was unsafe. The respondent appealed, and the learned Appellate Authority set aside the Rent Controller’s order and granted eviction with a three-month period to vacate. The petitioner filed the present revision petition challenging the Appellate Authority’s decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the property in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation justifying eviction.
- Whether the principle of res judicata barred the present eviction petition given earlier dismissed eviction petitions.
- Whether subsequent repairs to the property could prevent an eviction order based on unsafe conditions.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments
- The property was old and structurally unsound, with roofs made of sirkies and balas that were broken and could collapse at any time.
- Walls were constructed with old bricks and mud mortar, exhibiting deep cracks and broken plaster.
- Portions of the building had already collapsed, with debris lying in the courtyard.
- Presented expert testimony from a qualified engineer stating the building was in bad condition and could fall.
- Produced photographic evidence depicting the dilapidated state of the premises.
Petitioner's Arguments
- Raised a preliminary objection that the petition was barred by res judicata due to earlier eviction petitions on similar grounds being dismissed.
- Admitted roofs were made of sirkies and balas but denied that the premises were unsafe or unfit for habitation.
- Denied the existence of cracks in the walls and asserted that walls were built with a mix of new and old bricks.
- Produced an expert report from a retired sub-divisional engineer stating the building was fit for human habitation.
- Argued that the roof had been repaired and relied on precedents holding that subsequent repairs could negate grounds for eviction.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Trilok Chand v. Smt. Dropati Devi | Old buildings with minor defects (e.g., two loose wooden planks) do not necessarily become unfit or unsafe for habitation. | The Court distinguished the present case on facts, noting that the current property showed extensive damage beyond minor defects. |
| Amar Chand Tangri v. Evergreen Hosiery, Ludhiana | Eviction petitions based on alleged unsafe condition fail if no evidence shows the property is damaged or weak. | The Court found this precedent inapplicable as the present property was independently proven to be unsafe and unfit. |
| Smt. Phoolan Rani v. Smt. Pushpa Wati | Subsequent repairs to a property can negate grounds for eviction on unsafe conditions. | The Court held that this principle did not apply here due to the current poor condition of the property despite any repairs. |
| Shadi Singh v. Rakha (Supreme Court) | Subsequent events, such as tenant repairs, can be considered to prevent eviction orders based on prior unsafe conditions. | The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on this precedent, finding the property still unsafe despite any repairs. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first addressed the res judicata objection, clarifying that previous eviction petitions had been dismissed on different grounds and that the current ground—property being unsafe and unfit—was not previously adjudicated. Therefore, res judicata did not bar the present petition.
Regarding the unsafe condition of the property, the Court noted that the Appellate Authority had relied on the respondent’s expert engineer and photographic evidence showing significant structural damage, including cracks, broken plaster, bulging bricks, and deteriorated roofs. The Court found these facts persuasive over the petitioner’s contrary expert report.
The Court distinguished precedents cited by the petitioner by emphasizing that minor defects in old buildings do not necessarily render them unsafe, but the extensive damage here was beyond such minor defects. It further rejected the petitioner’s argument that subsequent repairs negated the eviction ground, finding the property’s condition remained unsafe despite any repairs.
On this basis, the Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s conclusion that the property had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
Holding and Implications
The Court dismissed the revision petition, thereby upholding the eviction order passed by the learned Appellate Authority.
The direct effect of this decision is that the petitioner must vacate the premises within the period granted by the Appellate Authority. The Court did not establish new legal precedent but affirmed the application of existing principles regarding eviction on grounds of unsafe habitation conditions and the inapplicability of res judicata when the eviction ground is newly arisen.
V.S Aggarwal, J.:— The present revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Ferozepur, dated 7.1.1994 By virtue of the same, learned Appellate Authority set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ferozepur, dated 19.10.1992 and instead passed an order of eviction against the petitioner giving him a period of three months to vacate the premises.
2. The relevant facts are that respondent Shri Kanth had preferred a petition for eviction against the petitioner with respect to the suit premises. The sole surviving ground of eviction in the present revision petition is as to if the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not. The respondent's case was that the property in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The entire structure is old and can fall at any time. The roof of the rooms and the kitchen are made of sirkies and balas. The sirkies are in broken condition. The roof was also stated to be broken at places and open to sky. The walls of the rooms were made of old type bricks with mud mortar. The mud plaster had broken down at many places. Deep cracks had developed in the walls. Similarly, roof of the kitchen was stated to be made of same material and cracks are stated to have developed in the said roof. It can fall at any time. Plea was raised that roof of the barsati on the first floor was also made of sirkies and wooden balas. The roof was in broken condition. The walls of barsati were stated to be made with bricks of old type and mud but were not plastered with any material or mud. The entire structure was stated to be in a dilapidated condition which can fall at any time. The southern portion of the house was stated to be in the possession of one Iqbal Singh. The portion in possession of Iqbal Singh was also made of similar material and had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. That portion had fallen down. The debris is lying in the courtyard.
3. The petitioner contested the eviction petition. Preliminary objection was taken that the petition is barred by the principles of res judicata because earlier petitions for eviction had been filed and were dismissed. It was admitted that the roofs of the premises were made of sirkies and balas. It was, however, denied that the condition of the suit premises is such that it can be termed that it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it was asserted that the walls of the rooms had been built with new and old type of bricks. It was denied that there were any cracks in the walls of the premises in dispute.
4. The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence held that it has not been “established that the property in question is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petition had been dismissed.
5. An appeal was preferred. The findings of the learned Rent Controller were set aside by the learned Appellate Authority. Hence, the present revision petition.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, it was pointed out that earlier a petition for eviction had been filed in the year 1975, it was withdrawn on 7.10.1976 vide a copy of the order Exhibit DX. On 10.5.1977 another petition was filed for personal requirement which was dismissed on 7.11.1978 Thereafter, yet another petition was filed in March, 1979 which was also dismissed in November, 1980. On the basis of these facts, learned counsel contended that when earlier petitions for eviction were filed, the subsequent eviction petition as a result of which present revision petition arises, would not be maintainable.
7. There is no over emphasising the fact that when earlier ground of eviction was available which was taken and adjudicated upon, then the subsequent petition on the same cause will not be maintainable. However, if earlier the ground of eviction was not available and the cause arises after the petition for eviction had been dismissed, there is no bar in filing the subsequent petition. Earlier, the matter had never been heard and adjudicated upon nor it is shown in the present case that the said ground of eviction was available. Consequently, the principles of res judicata could not be attracted.
8. Reverting back to the ground of eviction as to if the property in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it is not in controversy that another portion which was previously in occupation of one Iqbal Singh has since fallen. The attention of the Court was being drawn to the fact that it was bearing a separate Municipal No. But the learned Appellate Authority has clearly drawn a conclusion that it is one composite building, it would certainly, therefore, reflect on the condition of the present portion and it must follow that the present structure also is old.
9. All the same, the respondent-landlord had to prove independently that the suit property had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As referred to above, respondent's claim was that sirkies and balas had outlived their value and utility and they can fall at any time. The respondent has examined Kulwant Singh, AW1, a qualified Engineer. He stated that the condition of the building in dispute is bad and it can fall at any time. Sham Lal, AW3, is a photographer and had produced the photographs Exhibits A3 to A26 depicting the condition of different parts of the premises in dispute. The petitioner had examined one Dhanna Singh, RW1, Retired Sub Divisional Engineer, as a building expert. As per his report, the building in dispute was fit for human habitation.
10. Though there are contradictory reports of two building experts, the Appellate Authority had chosen to believe the building expert produced by the respondent-landlord. However, in this regard photographs Exhibits A3 to A26 assumes great importance, Certain photographs of the building in dispute had been taken from different parts. It shows that there are cracks in the wall and much wider crack in the roof. They show that the bricks are bulging out and mud and mortar had fallen from the said structure. Wooden planks of the roof is bereft of any plaster, it looks that it is loosing its place. When the bricks are bulging out and is bereft of plaster and the roof, as mentioned above, is in a bad shape, there is no ground to disturb the finding arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority. It must follow that the building in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a large number of precedents so as to urge that it cannot be stated that the building in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Trilok Chand v. Smt. Dropati Devi,1. In the cited case, one of the grounds of eviction was that the building was stated to have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it was an old building. Two wooden planks had fallen. The roof was leaking. This Court held as under:—
“……Solely the building being old and being built of small bricks is no ground to assume of infer that it has outlived its life and is unsafe and unfit for human habitation……”
12. It is clear from the aforesaid that the decision was confined to the peculiar facts therein, it is not that two wooden planks here are loose. The photographs clearly show that the walls and the roof all are in a bad shape.
13. In that event reliance was placed on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Amar Chand Tangri v. Evergreen Hosiery, Ludhiana,2. In the cited case, petition for eviction was filed on the ground that the property in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The upper portion of the building has also fallen. There was no evidence that the suit property had been damaged or rendered weak. This Court held that the petition for eviction must fail. Indeed, reliance on the said decision is misplaced because here, as noted above, even the suit premises itself is not fit for human habitation.
14. In that event, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the roof has since been repaired and thereupon relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Phoolan Rani v. Smt. Pushpa Wati,3 and the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shadi Singh v. Rakha,4. Supreme Court in Shadi Singh's case (supra) had concluded that the subsequent event can be taken note of and once the tenant has repaired the roof, order of eviction cannot be passed.
15. That being the legal position, the question for consideration would be as to whether the petitioner can have the advantage of ratio decidendi of these judgments or not. The answer would be in the negative. The photographs read with the report of the building expert of the respondent which reconcile clearly show that the condition of the wall and the roof is very bad. Even the roof had loose wooden planks with cracks, it is not that when the building falls one would say that the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Even at this stage, it is patent that the condition of the building is such that the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at is that it is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Thus, the finding of fact required no disturbance.
16. For these reasons, the revision petition being without merit must fail and is accordingly dismissed.
R.M.S
Appeal dismissed.
Alert