IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.718 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:10.02.2011. Prabhu Dayal ...Petitioner Versus Nathuram Sanghi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises, inter alia, on the ground of the demised premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Courts below have relied upon the report Ex.R5 of the Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD(B&R) who was appointed as Local Commissioner and also report of the Building Expert to opine that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as it has outlived its life. It is observed that “the reports of the Local Commissioner and the Building Expert go a long way to show that several cracks have developed in the disputed property which do not require minor repair.” Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court to frame a contrary opinion, but I am afraid that in the presence of the report of the Local Commissioner, who happened to be the Sub Divisional Engineer, PWD (B&R), and also the report of the Building Expert, who have both concurrently opined that the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, a different opinion can be framed to disturb the concurrent finding of the Courts below. Thus, the revision petition is found to be totally without any merit and as such the same is hereby dismissed in limine, however, without any order as to costs. February 10, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE