Civil Revision No.3449 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3449 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:21.01.2009 Duni Chand .............. Petitioner Vs. Krishan Lal .............Respondent Present: Mr. Amit Jhajhi, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? No -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The landlord's application for eviction on the ground of material alteration in the building and as having become unfit for human habitation was rejected by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. 2. The authorities below have considered the fact that the construction that has been made with nanakshahi bricks still holds sufficient strength and integrity of the construction is not jeoparadised; that mere existence of cracks does not show that the building has become uninhabitable. The Appellate Authority has particularly referred to the dilemma faced by the fact that there are two experts appearing on each side, one to state that building is not in a fit state for habitation while yet another expert states quite the converse. Adverting to all the material facts, the Appellate Authority has confirmed that the building is not in such a state as to be rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Likewise, the finding relating to material alteration has also been done on proper consideration of the fact that there were no details given anywhere in the petition as to when the so-called material alterations have been made and in the absence of any Civil Revision No.3449 of 2008 (O&M) -2- clear pleadings and evidence, it would be unsafe to uphold the landlord's contention that the tenant had carried out any material alteration. 3. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the reasoning adopted by the Authorities below and there is no scope for intervention in revision petition. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 21, 2009 Pankaj*