Roshan Lal and Others vs Rattan Chand

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by Roshan Lal and others, hereinafter described as the petitioners directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur dated 25.1.1985 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Hoshiarpur, dated 27.9.1986. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction filed by the respondent Rattan Chand but the said order was set aside by the learned Appellate Authority.

The relevant facts are that the respondent filed eviction petition against the petitioners asserting that there is a relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties. The grounds of eviction pleaded were that the tenants had failed to pay the arrears of rent. The property was let as a shop but is being used as a godown; and lastly that the suit premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

The petitioners had contested the eviction petition. It was asserted that the premises is being used as a shop and that it has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 25.1.1985 held that the property in question has not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and further there is no misuser of the property. It was held that it is not established that it is used as a godown. The eviction petition was dismissed.

The respondent preferred an appeal. The learned Appellate Authority, as pointed above, concluded that the property in question has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and accordingly on that account passed an order of eviction. Hence, the present revision petition.

It is a finding of fact arrived at by the learned Appellate Authority pertaining to the condition of the shop. It has been found that the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Reliance has been placed on Santokh Singh expert produced by the respondent. He has found that there were vertical cracks in the steel rolling shutter. It can fall at any time. The western wall has three vertical cracks. The reinforcement bricks slab has cracks and bent down 2" to 3". The roof was found to be dangerous and could fall at any time. It is obvious from the said report based on facts-that the condition of the building was not good and it can be easily described to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The said finding is based on evidence and consequently under sub-section (5) to Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, this Court will not interfere in the said finding.

The contention of the petitioners that it is the respondent who had caused damage has rightly been repelled because evidence in this regard was shaky which deserves to be ignored.

During the pendency of the revision petition, the respondent preferred an application to make note of the subsequent events. It was pointed out that the roof of the shop during the pendency of the revision petition has virtually fallen down. The petitioners have already removed the goods and had just locked the premises. Certain photographs to show the condition of the shop had also been appended. Notice of the said application had been given to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not have the courage to rebut the said assertions. In other words, one can conveniently held that the property in question has materially fallen while the revision petition was pending in this Court.

Supreme Court in the case of Shikharchand Jain Vs. Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha and Others, , took note, of the subsequent events and held as under:-

".....But it is open to a Court including a Court of appeal to take notice of events which have happened after the institution of the suit and afford relief to the parties in the changed circumstances where it is shown that the relief claimed originally has (1) by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or (2) where it is necessary to take notice of the changed circumstances in order to shorten the litigation, or (3) to do complete justice between the parties. (See Rai Charan v. Biswanath AIR 1915 Cal. 103)."

Same view prevailed with the Supreme court in the decision rendered in the case of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu Vs. The Motor and General Traders, , wherein it was held that the right to relief must be judged on the date suit is filed but equally clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. Subsequent event can also be taken note of at the time when the appeal or revision comes up for hearing.

Delhi High Court in the case of R.B. Kapoor v. Manek N. Dastur 1988(2) AIRC J 466, took up the same view that where the subsequent event vitally affect the decision of the case it can be taken note of. Herein, the building as such had fallen during the pendency of the revision petition. It lends further support to the contention that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

For these reasons, the revision petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioners are granted one month time to vacate the suit premises.