IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6202 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.10.2009 Ram Swarup .....Petitioner versus Ram Swarup and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 8.1.2004 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, whereby his application under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), to carry out necessary repairs in the demised shop, has been dismissed and that order of the Rent Controller has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul, vide its judgment dated 19.1.2008. While declining the petitioner's prayer for carrying out necessary repairs in the demised shop, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the shop is in a dilapidated condition and is beyond C.R. No.6102 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the scope of repair. The roof of the shop is completely damaged; 2-3 wooden planks are broken and fallen down; the premises in dispute is beyond repair and can only be reconstructed after its demolition. The petitioner himself in his deposition has admitted that at present wall to the height of 3-4 feet by arranging dry stones is in existence. In other words, at the time when the petitioner's own statement was recorded, the roof of the shop had already fallen down. Besides the oral evidence, the Courts below have also referred to report of the Local Commissioner (Ex.D-1) and most importantly, the Sub Divisional Engineer (Maintenance), PWD (B&R), Sub Division, Narnaul, who inspected the demised premises in the presence of both the parties on 4.4.1998, has given the following report:- “1. All the four walls are of stone masonry in mud mortar and are damaged/disturbed. Front wall is approximately 6' in height, the right side wall is 78-6” in height, the back wall is approximately 6' in height, similarly, left side wall is approximately 7'-6” in height. 2. The existing flooring is of stones laid dry. 3. There is no shutter of the shop. 4. The shop is without any roof and all the four walls fully damaged/disturbed. 5. Since all the walls are disturbed, as such the shop in question can not be repaired and in any case it has to be reconstructed fully.” That being the state of affairs, no interference in the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 20-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE