CR No. 1813 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1813 of 2009 Decided on :01 -04-2009 Madan Lal ....Petitioner VERSUS S.J.Anand ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has impugned order dated 20.2.2009 (Annexure P-7) by which his application for staying the proceedings in appeal initiated by the respondent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been declined. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier he had initiated proceedings under Section 10 of the Act praying for grant of amenities and for repairs of the premises in dispute which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. Against this order, the respondent- landlord went up in appeal, which was allowed and a revision against the same was preferred by the respondent which is still pending in this Court. Subsequently, the respondent-landlord moved a petition under Section 13 of the Act praying for eviction of the petitioner on the following grounds:- i) non-payment of rent ii)having ceased to occupy the premises. iii)Having impaired the value and utility of the structure. iv)Personal necessity v) that building has become unsafe and unfit for human CR No. 1813 of 2009 2 habitation. It is the case of the petitioner that one of the grounds which has been taken up by the respondent-landlord is that the building has become unfit for human habitation which has been determined against the petitioner by holding that the building has become unsafe for occupation and that if his revision which is pending before this Court is allowed and the amenities and the repairs which are warranted are permitted to be carried out then in such an eventuality the building would become safe and fit for habitation. It is, thus, contended that it is imperative that the proceedings in appeal which have been preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioner be stayed for the simple reason that the outcome of the revision is likely to impact the aforesaid issue. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material which has been brought on record. The order of the learned Rent Controller which has been passed directing the eviction of the petitioner is on record and it reveals that while recording the finding on the status of the building and its condition, learned Rent Controller by referring the report of the building expert has observed as follows:- i) the battons, wooden beams have been eaten by white ants. There is dampness on walls & roofing of rooms (A), (B) & (C ) due to remaining closed. The wall finishing of cement pointing, mud mortar in the joints has lost the adhesive power at many places, the joints have become unsupported due to oozing out of mortar, the bricks have been affected by color and are damaged. CR No. 1813 of 2009 3 Many of the bricks visible inside and outside on walls of rooms (A), (B) & (C ) are color eaten and damaged beyond repairs. Due to the effects the walls have become unsafe and structurally weak. ii) Due to change of level front door of the shop has been cut off from below causing damage to it. iii) The construction of low wall in front of door room (B) has obstructed the clear entry to the room. iv) There is construction of ramp in front of front door causing uneven entry and also rain water falling on ramp enters the low level inner floor. v) Due to negligent use of the premises many walls and doors and windows have been damaged and also the entry to the room (c ) has been blocked from outside. All the walls have developed cracks due to persisting dampness” A perusal of the above shows that the building is totally in a ram shackle condition and even if the revision petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner and necessary repairs are permitted to be carried out yet it is unlikely to improve the condition of the building so as to make it fit for habitation. That apart eviction has been ordered on other grounds also. In this eventuality, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings in the appeal be stayed is totally without any basis. There is no infirmity in the impugned order and consequently, the revision being without any merit is dismissed. April 1, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge