IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2957 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2nd July, 2010 M/s Sewak Metal Industries … Petitioner Versus Pritam Yadav … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Civil Misc. No.11503-CII of 2010 in Civil Revision No.2957 of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 86 days in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned. Civil Revision No.2957 of 2010 Dasti service could not be effected upon the respondent, however, learned counsel has submitted his arguments regarding the merits of the case. Present revision petition has been preferred by the landlord. He is aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Controller on 21st October, 2009, whereby directions were issued to the landlord under Civil Revision No.2957 of 2010 (O&M) Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 to carry the necessary repair over the roof of the shop to prevent leakage. He was further called to carry all the incidental repairs which were necessary for that purpose. Onset of the monsoon is another reason for which this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petition ought to be decided at the earliest. The petitioner had earlier filed an ejectment petition on the ground that the shop in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, but the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide its judgment Ex.C-5 and a clear-cut finding was given that the shop in dispute was fit for human habitation. In the impugned judgment, the Court also considered the report of the Local Commissioner Mr.Arun Sakkarwal, who appeared as RW-2, and came to the conclusion that the repair of the roof of the shop in dispute was necessary. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that various arguments raised and all aspects of the case were considered, and the evidence of the witnesses was analyzed. This Court, after going through the impugned judgment, is of the opinion that the same, in no way, suffers from any infirmity and no interference is warranted. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 2, 2010 rps 2