CR No.6265 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6265 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:13.05.2011. Harish Chander Sethi ...Petitioner Versus Shri Gurdip Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The landlord is in revision against orders of the Courts below by which his eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] against the tenant in respect of premises bearing House Tax No.199-B/A, Old No.7493/4, Shukulkund Road, Ambala City, has been dismissed. In brief, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent, impairment of value and utility of the demised premises and causing nuisance. On the pleadings of the parties, which have been given in detail in the orders of the Courts below, as many as 8 issues were framed on 27.01.2004. The learned Rent Controller decided issues No.1 in favour of the petitioner, issues Nos.2 to 5 against the petitioner and issues Nos.6 and 7 were decided against the respondent as they were not pressed. Finally, the eviction petition was dismissed on 24.02.2009. During the pendency of appeal, the landlord filed an application for additional evidence in order to bring on record House Tax Assessment Report pertaining to the year 1987-88 which was though allegedly available but untraceable. The said application was dismissed CR No.6265 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that if the document was available with the landlord who had failed to produce it in time, then it cannot be produced simply by stating that it was not traceable. The learned Appellate Authority was confronted with two points, namely, what is the rate of rent and whether the respondent/tenant is guilty of material impairment of value and utility of the demised premises. It was held that the rate of rent of the demised premises was `300/- per month which had already been deposited by the tenant before the learned Rent Controller and as such, the tender was not short. In respect of impairment of value and utility, the following observations were made: - “In the case in hand, neither in the petition nor when the petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW2, was he able to point out as to when exactly the wall from points C to D (in the site plan attached along with the petition) was broken by respondent, any previously approved site plan from Municipal Committee was also not placed on the record to show that the said wall was in fact in existence at the time when the premises were given on rent to respondent, self-serving statement of the petitioner to the effect that respondent had encroached over the portion marked ABCD as shown in the site plan, would not prove that respondent has encroached over the area more than the tenanted premises, apart from this, no building expert was examined by petitioner to prove material impairment of the shop in question at the hands of respondent-tenant. No other witness from the locality was got examined by landlord, who could have supported his stand, on the other hand, witnesses examined by tenant without mincing any words deposed that no material change has been effected in the premises. For paucity of reliable CR No.6265 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** evidence therefore, it cannot be held that any act or conduct on the part of respondent has materially impaired the value and utility of the tenanted premises.” Although learned counsel for the petitioner has argued vehemently to prove that the respondent is guilty of imparing the value and utility of the demised premises but in the face of the aforesaid observations in which he has failed to find fault, I do not find any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below while concurrently dismissing the application of the landlord for eviction. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. May 13, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge