Civil Revision No. 3526 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3526 of 2009 Date of decision : 19.5.2010 Kanta Rani and others ....Petitioners Versus Manjinderpal Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. Learned Rent Controller recorded a finding upholding the contention of the respondent-landlord that the tenanted premises under the occupation of the petitioners-tenants have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The further finding in the context was that the roof of the tenanted premises had fallen down. The finding was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners- tenants, argues that the roof, infact, had been demolished by the respondent-landlord himself just in order to obtain the possession thereof. It is further argued that an FIR, in the context, had been lodged by the petitioners-tenants against the respondent-landlord but the latter got acquitted on account of benefit of doubt. It is not even averred on behalf of the petitioners-tenants that he ever made a grievance of the above act of the respondent- landlord to the learned Rent Controller during the period the matter Civil Revision No. 3526 of 2009 -2- ***** was pending in that Court. If a landlord acts in the alleged way, the least a tenant would be expected to do is to intimate the facts to the Court which is already seized of eviction action initiated by the respondent-landlord. In view of the fact that petitioner-tenant is not averred to have made a grievance to that effect before the learned Rent Controller and also in view of the fact that respondent-landlord stands acquitted on a charge of having demolished the roof of the tenanted premises, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrence of view indicated by both the Forums. Even otherwise, a revisional Court has in-built limitations in the matter of appreciation of evidence, as pronounced by the Apex Court in M.S.Zehad Vs. K. Raghvan 1998 (2) RCR 628. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The petitioners- tenants shall have two months time from today to vacate the premises aforementioned. May 19, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE