IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3344 of 2009 Date of Decision : 20.08.2009 Om Parkash .....Petitioner versus Ved Parkash .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rakesh 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 whose application under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, for directing the respondent-landlord to carry out necessary repairs in the demised premises, has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Pehowa vide order dated 22.2.2008 and whose appeal against the aforestated order has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Kurukshetra, vide order dated 7.2.2009. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that as per the report of the Local Commissioner, there is no seepage through the roof of the demised shop and that the door of the shop, as admitted by C.R. No. 3344 of 2009 2 the tenant himself, is also in good condition. The Local Commissioner was sent to inspect the premises and submitted his report. The petitioner has failed to cross-examine the Local Commissioner in respect of the alleged seepage and/or poor condition of the demised shop to justify the demanded repairs. No interference with the concurrent finding of fact returned by the Courts below is called for. Dismissed. 20-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE