Amarjeet vs Neelam and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner, claiming himself to be owner of certain premises, has filed eviction petition u/s 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against Respondents, Raj Kumar and Balwant Rai. One of the grounds, on which eviction is sought, is that material repairs, additions and alterations are to be carried out. Petitioner moved an application before learned Rent Controller, seeking direction to the Respondents to allow tenanted premises to be inspected by an expert, for the purpose of seeking expert''s opinion, whether intended additions and alterations can be carried out without vacation of the tenanted premises. Application has been dismissed by learned Rent Controller with the observation that landlord-Petitioner had been delaying the disposal of the case as he did not adduce evidence, despite various opportunities having been granted to him.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

As a matter of fact, petition had been dismissed in default and it was restored to file three years later and on first date of restoration of the petition, when the matter was taken up for evidence of the Petitioner, present application, on which impugned order has been passed, was moved. Therefore, reason recorded by learned Rent Controller for rejecting the application cannot be said to be well-founded. Consequently, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and application, moved by the Petitioner for inspection of the tenanted premises by an expert, is allowed. Date for inspection of the tenanted premises by the expert shall be fixed by learned Rent Controller. Parties are directed to appear before learned Rent Controller on 11th October, 2011.

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.