Civil Revision No.3652 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3652 of 2009 (O&M) Mahabir ...Petitioner(s) v. Nand Lal & Ors. ...Respondent(s) AND Civil Revision No. 382 of 2010 Dhanraj & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Mahabir & Anr. ...Respondent(s) Date of decision: September 10, 2010. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Vikas Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Sanjay Vashishth, Advocate, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): CM No.18649-CII of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The revision petition is restored to its original number and file. Civil Revision No.3652 of 2009 -: 2 :- CM No.15286-CII of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay of 63 days in filing the accompanying revision petition is condoned. Civil Revision No.3652 of 2009 By this common order, Civil Revisions No.3652 of 2009 and 382 of 2010 shall be decided together. The present petition has been filed by the tenant. His eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller on two grounds. Firstly, that the tender made by the petitioner was short and invalid. Secondly, the shop in question has become unfit for human habitation as it was unsafe to live therein and was in a dilapidated condition. The tenant filed an appeal. In appeal, even though the Appellate Authority affirmed the ground of eviction on payment of rent, however, it held that even though the shop is unfit for human habitation, no pleadings to this effect were made and hence, the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation was reversed. I have heard Counsel for the parties. Petitioner-tenant had deposited the rent at the rate of Rs.144/- per month, whereas the two courts below relied upon house tax register and came to conclusion that rate of rent was Rs.400/- per month. Rent note Ex.P5 was also taken into consideration. The court held that since the rate of rent was Rs.400/- per month and the deposit has been made at the rate of Rs.144/- per month, therefore, the tender was short and invalid. According to Counsel for the petitioner, no provisional rent was assessed. Therefore, no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount of rent. Civil Revision No.3652 of 2009 -: 3 :- Counsel further submitted that even though the Rent Controller held the rate of rent at Rs.400/-, it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to afford an opportunity to the tenant to make deficiency in rent good. Therefore, counsel stated that findings recorded by the two courts below that he is to be evicted on the ground of non-payment of rent, cannot be sustained. Counsel for the landlord has filed the connected Civil Revision No.382 of 2010. In that revision, he has assailed the finding of the Appellate Authority, whereby finding that tenant is to be evicted, as building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, has been reversed, on the ground that the same was not pleaded in the eviction petition. Counsel states that he be permitted to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and if he does so, the ejectment petition be decided within specified time. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has no objection thereto. Hence, both the revision petitions are disposed of by permitting the landlord to withdraw the eviction petition with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action including the ground that building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In case, the ejectment petition is filed within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, Rent Controller shall make every endeavour to dispose of the same within one year from the date of institution. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 10, 2010. Judge kadyan