- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The present appeals are by the defendant-tenant as against the order dated 24th March, 2000 passed by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction by which it reversed the finding of the appellate Court that the disputed shop in question is not unsafe for human habitation. The questions raised in these appeals are : (1) Whether the High Court under its Revisional Jurisdiction which limits to examine the "legality and propriety" of the appellate Court order was justified in reversing its findings based on evidence on record. (2) Whether the High Court could have appointed a local Commissioner while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and to reverse the finding of the appellate Court based on the report of such Commissioner.
(3.) In order to appreciate the controversies we are herewith giving some of the essential facts. The appellant took the disputed shop on rent from one Aya Ram who sold the said shop to one Prakash Rani. The respondents Nos. 1 to 8 are Lrs. of this Prakash Rani, who filed petition for eviction against the appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') from the disputed shop. The eviction petition was based on three grounds : (a) The appellant has not paid the rent from 2nd July, 1968, (b) He has sub-let the shop without taking the permission of the landlord and (c) the building is in dilapidated condition with cracks hence not fit for human habitation requiring demolition and reconstruction. The appellant denied all these and other allegations made in the petition. The trial Court decreed the eviction petition. It held that the appellant tendered the rent on 24-10-1975 about which no grievance was made by the respondent-landlord at the time of arguments, the shop was sub-let by the appellant, and the disputed shop is unfit for human habitation. The appellant filed appeal and the appellate Court set aside the trial Court findings. It held that sub-letting has not been proved. It further, on the basis of evidence on record, held that it cannot be said that the cracks in the building have made it unfit or unsafe for human habitation. Aggrieved by this the respondent filed revision in the High Court. During the pendency of the said revision an application was moved by respondents for appointment of a local Commissioner which was objected through written objection by the appellant. The said local Commissioner submitted his report to the Court, the relevant portion of his report is quoted hereunder : ". . . . . . .there was a hole in the roof measuring 13" x 12" which had been temporarily shut from the interior side with the help of wooden planks by giving the support of sticks and from the upper side this hole was found and 4 Ballies near the hole were in a decayed condition and wooden planks near the hole were in a bad condition due to seepage of water from the hole of the roof . . . . . . The outerside of the right side wall of the shop, there was a big crack on the beginning of the wall extending from top to more than middle of the wall. This crack measuring 2" x 7.5" (depth) from the upper side and 1.5" x 6.5" from the lower side and in the end of the same wall, there was also a big crack measuring 2" x 8" from the upperside 2" x 7" from the lower side and the roof of the passage was in a totally damaged condition which did not cover the shop but covers the passage.";