CR No.276 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.276 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:07.02.2011 Vikram Lamba . . .Petitioner Versus Rajender Parsad . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.S.K. Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Parvesh, Advocate, for Mr.M.K. Verma, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) The tenant is in revision petition against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to be evicted from the shop in dispute. The landlord filed eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act) against the tenant/petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent and impairment of value and utility. The learned Rent Controller rejected the ground of non-payment of rent but allowed the petition for eviction on the ground of impairment of value and utility of the shop in dispute. Aggrieved against the order of the Rent Controller dated 15.1.2010, both the parties went in appeal as landlord filed appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, whereby eviction on the basis of non-payment of rent was declined and the tenant filed the appeal against the order of eviction on the ground of impairment of value and utility. The Appellate Authority by its order dated 28.9.2010 upheld the order of the Rent Controller insofar as the question of non-payment of rent is concerned and as such the appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed and at the same time upheld the order of the Rent Controller with regard to the impairment of value and utility of the shop in CR No.276 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - dispute. Aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Authority only tenant has filed the present revision petition assailing the order of eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the intervening wall which has caused impairment of value and utility of the shop in dispute was removed by the landlord. However, there is no evidence on record in this regard. The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below is that the tenant/petitioner was occupying shop No.43 and in the month of October 2001, without the written consent of the landlord, Eastern wall of the said shop was removed and shop No.43 and 44 was converted into one shop. After going through the record, I do not find any error in the orders of the learned Courts below and as such the present revision petition is found to be devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) FEBRUARY 07, 2011 JUDGE Vivek