Supreme Court Dismisses Eviction Plea, Allows Fresh Petition if Premises Become Unsafe

Petitioner Name: Surinder

Respondent Name: Nand Lal

Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan

Judgment Date: 01-02-2018

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Surinder vs. Nand Lal, addressed a dispute regarding the eviction of tenants on the ground that the premises had become unsafe for human habitation. The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling that the appellant failed to prove that the shops in question were in a dilapidated condition. However, the Court left open the possibility of filing a fresh eviction petition if the condition of the premises deteriorated further.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Surinder, is the owner of a property in Main Bazar, Old Najafgarh Road, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, consisting of several shops. These shops were initially constructed in the mid-1960s by the appellant’s father and were rented out to the respondents, including Nand Lal. The dispute arose when the appellant sought eviction of the tenants under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming that the shops had become unsafe and uninhabitable.

The case progressed as follows:

• The Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh, dismissed the eviction petition, ruling that the appellant failed to prove that the premises were in a dilapidated condition.
• The appellant appealed to the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, who upheld the Rent Controller’s decision.
• The appellant then filed a revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was also dismissed.
• Finally, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India.

Key Legal Issues Considered

• Whether the premises in question were in a dilapidated condition and unsafe for habitation.
• Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the eviction petition based on the evidence presented.
• Whether the appellant could file a fresh eviction petition if the condition of the premises worsened.

Arguments by the Appellant (Surinder)

• The appellant contended that he had provided expert evidence, including a report from a certified engineer, which clearly demonstrated that the structure was unsafe.
• The engineer’s report detailed significant structural damage, including cracks in the walls, deflected roof projections, and eroded cement plaster, indicating a risk of sudden collapse.
• The appellant argued that the lower courts ignored this expert evidence and instead relied on the tenants’ counterclaims, which lacked substantial proof.
• He further argued that during the pendency of the appeal in 2012, a Chhajja (roof projection) had fallen, proving that the premises were indeed unsafe.

Arguments by the Respondents (Nand Lal & Others)

• The tenants presented their own expert witness, who testified that the shops were in good condition and did not pose any immediate risk.
• The respondents argued that the appellant had never undertaken repairs or maintenance of the property, leading to its gradual wear and tear.
• They contended that the claims regarding the collapse of the Chhajja were not substantiated with official records or evidence before the lower courts.
• The respondents maintained that the lower courts had rightfully dismissed the eviction petition based on a balanced assessment of the evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court reviewed the judgments of the lower courts and the expert reports presented by both parties. The Court noted:

“In the opinion of the court, the petitioners have not been able to prove that the shop is in a dilapidated condition.”

The Court further observed:

“The findings of the lower courts were based on a thorough examination of the evidence, and there is no reason for this Court to interfere with those findings.”

However, the Court acknowledged the appellant’s claim that the Chhajja had fallen during the appeal process. It noted that while this fact was not sufficiently proven before the lower courts, it could form the basis for a fresh cause of action.

Final Judgment and Directions

1. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the lower courts.
2. The Court ruled that the appellant had failed to establish that the premises were in an unsafe condition at the time of the eviction petition.
3. However, the Court granted the appellant the right to file a fresh eviction petition if the condition of the premises worsened.
4. The Court clarified that future claims should be supported by concrete evidence, including official reports from municipal authorities or structural engineers.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has important implications for eviction disputes and tenant rights under rent control laws:

• Landlords Must Provide Strong Evidence: Mere claims of structural damage are insufficient; expert reports must be credible and well-documented.
• Judicial Review of Expert Testimonies: Courts will weigh expert opinions carefully and prefer balanced assessments over unilateral claims.
• Tenants’ Rights Are Protected: Eviction cannot be ordered unless clear proof of inhabitable conditions is provided.
• New Eviction Petitions Are Allowed for Fresh Causes: If a property deteriorates further, landlords can initiate new legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case upholds the principle that tenants cannot be evicted without concrete evidence of unsafe conditions. While the appellant’s plea was dismissed, the judgment allows for a fresh eviction petition if substantial deterioration of the premises occurs. This decision reinforces the importance of evidence-based claims in rent control disputes and ensures a fair process for both landlords and tenants.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Surinder vs Nand Lal Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category