AMAR NATH Vs. RAJ DULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four revision petitions involve common questions, pertaining to the same building, from which eviction of different tenants has been sought on various grounds and, hence, they are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) FIRST , the relevant facts may be noticed. Respondent Dr. S.K. Sharma, hereinafter referred to as landlord, is the owner of a building known as Siri Niwas situated in Solan Town. There are some tenants in the building. He filed petitions, under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, for eviction of the tenants on various grounds. One of such grounds, taken in all the petitions, was that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and so it was bonafide required for rebuilding and reconstruction. He examined one Surjeet Singh as an expert to prove the plea that the building is in a dilapidated state and required reconstruction/rebuilding which cannot be carried out unless the tenants vacate it. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction in favour of the landlord and against the tenants, revision petitioners in these petitions. The tenants filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, Solan. During the pendency of the appeals the tenants moved applications under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, in which prayer was made that witness Surjeet Singh, expert, be recalled for further cross-examination by them, because he was intended to be confronted with his previous statement, which he made sometime in the year 1977 before a Rent Controller at Shimla, wherein he admitted that neither he possessed any degree nor diploma in Civil Engineering or Architecture from any recognized university, so as to contradict his statement made before the Rent Controller, Solan, that he was a graduate in engineering. Prayer was also made for leading some other additional evidence. That application was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.7.1992. A revision petition was filed against that order in this Court, which was disposed of on 23.10.1992, by the following order:

(3.) THE tenants filed revision petitions against the aforesaid order, dated 16.1.1993, because, according to them, their applications for re-summoning witness Surjeet Singh were required to be disposed of before the disposal of the main appeal. Not only this, 14 days time was also to be granted after the disposal of the applications to the tenants to file revision petitions in this Court in case orders on their applications were passed against them. This Court, vide order dated 12.4.2002, allowed the revision petitions. The operative part of the order passed by this Court, on 12.4.2002, reads as follows: