Mere Age Or Use Of Traditional Small Bricks Not Enough To Prove Building Is Unsafe For Habitation: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Mere antiquity of a structure or the nature of construction material employed therein, by itself, cannot be regarded as conclusive proof to establish that a building has become structurally unsafe or unfit for human habitation, particularly in the absence of any reliable evidence concerning its actual physical condition," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a building cannot be declared "unsafe and unfit for human habitation" merely because it is old or constructed using traditional materials like mud mortar and small bricks.

A bench of Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed that eviction on such grounds requires substantive, cogent, and reliable evidence of actual structural deterioration rather than mere assumptions based on the age of the property. The Court noted that the "unfit and unsafe" status must be determined by the actual physical condition of the structure at the time of the proceedings.

The matter arose from eviction petitions filed by a landlord under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, seeking to evict tenants from a premises in Sirsa. The landlord alleged default in rent and claimed the building, approximately 70-80 years old, had become unsafe for habitation. While the tenants denied the landlord-tenant relationship and claimed independent ownership through an oral gift, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority concurrently ordered eviction primarily on the ground of the building's dilapidated state.

The primary question before the Court was whether the age of a building and the nature of its construction materials (small bricks and mud mortar) are sufficient to conclude it is "unsafe and unfit for human habitation." The Court was also called upon to determine if a Local Commissioner’s report, prepared without physically entering the premises, could form the basis for an eviction order.

The High Court first addressed the preliminary issue of the landlord-tenant relationship. It noted that the lower authorities correctly relied on assessment records (Ex.A3) which identified the predecessor of the petitioners as a tenant. The Court affirmed that once a party relies on a document for one purpose, they cannot selectively ignore portions of it that establish a relationship of tenancy.

Landlord-Tenant Relationship Established Through Assessment Records

The bench observed that the petitioners, as legal heirs of the original occupant, stepped into his legal shoes as tenants. Consequently, the challenge to the relationship of landlord and tenant was rejected. However, the Court noted that the eviction had been ordered solely on the ground of the building being unsafe, as other grounds like bona fide necessity and nuisance had not been proved by the landlord.

Court Rejects Eviction Based Solely On Age Of Building

Turning to the core issue of structural safety, the Court scrutinized the findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. Both authorities had concluded the building was unsafe because it was built 60 to 80 years ago with "small bricks" and "mud mortar." The Court found this reasoning to be legally flawed and based on mere surmises rather than technical evidence.

Antiquity Is Not A Conclusive Factor For Structural Instability

The bench emphasized that the age of a structure is not a definitive indicator of its safety. It observed that many old structures remain sound, while newer ones may fail. The Court held that "mere antiquity" or the use of traditional materials like "barangas" (wooden battens) or mud mortar cannot be the sole criteria for eviction under the Rent Act.

Deficiencies In Local Commissioner’s Report Noted

The Court expressed sharp disapproval of the evidence provided by the Local Commissioner. It was revealed that the Commissioner had not even physically entered or inspected the interior of the disputed premises. Instead, the Commissioner had merely "peeped" into the property from the roof of an adjoining house. The Court found such a report to be a "manifest deficiency" that could not sustain a finding of structural unfitness.

Expert Technical Evidence Essential For Determining Safety

Justice Aggarwal pointed out that the landlord had failed to examine any qualified building expert or technical witness to substantiate the claim of dilapidation. The Court highlighted that the Rent Act requires a higher standard of proof to displace a tenant on the ground of the building’s condition, necessitating specific evidence of decay, such as sagging beams, deep cracks, or collapsing walls.

Distinction From Precedents Involving Actual Structural Decay

The Court meticulously distinguished several precedents cited by the landlord where eviction was upheld. It noted that in those cases, there was clear evidence of structural failure, such as roofs already having collapsed, vibrations felt in the structure, or lime mortar having lost all cohesive strength. In contrast, the present case lacked any proof of actual physical deterioration.

“The report of the Local Commissioner also does not contain any categorical finding or opinion to the effect that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.”

Concluding the analysis, the Court held that the lower authorities had committed a material illegality by misappreciating the evidence. The High Court found that the findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were based on assumptions rather than facts, rendering the concurrent orders unsustainable in law.

The High Court allowed all three revision petitions and set aside the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. It concluded that the landlord failed to meet the evidentiary burden required to prove that the building was structurally unsound. The Court clarified that without technical expert testimony or visible signs of collapse, age alone cannot be a ground to evict a tenant under the Haryana Rent Act.

Date of Decision: 27 May 2026