High CourtsSingle Bench(1986) 01 P&H CK 0082

Lachhman Dass vs Ashok Kumar

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 January 1986 · Citation: (1986) 1 RCR(Rent) 554

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.V. Gupta, J
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 426 of 1979

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 341 words

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the Authorities below.

2.

The landlord Ashok Kumar filed the ejectment application on 16th February, 1974, seeking ejectment of the tenant from the shop in dispute, alleging that the shop had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as its roof had been entirely damaged and that soma portion of the roof had also fallen down. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant. The learned Rent Controller found that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human living, and, so passed an order of eviction. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with it, the tenant has filed this petition.

3.

It may be stated that during the pendency of the ejectment application the tenant also moved an application u/s 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, for getting necessary repairs made in the demised premises which was dismissed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, and no challenge was made to these orders, and so, the same became final.

4.

Before the Appellate Authority both the parties agreed that the roof had been completely damaged, and therefore, it was concluded that if it was damaged, the same can not be replaced without eviction. Moreover, on appreciation of the entire evidence, it has been concurrently found that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. That being a finding of fact, cannot be successfully challenged in rerisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.

5.

However, the tenant is allowed three months'' time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent upto date if any, along-with advance rent for three months, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month from today, with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of said period, vacant possession shall be handed over to the landlord.