Civil Revision No.3249 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3249 of 1990 Date of decision: 16.03.2009 Dutt Parkash Handa (deceased) through LRs .............Petitioner Vs. Rakesh Kumar Puri and another ............Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The civil revision is of the year 1990 and there is no representation for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent is present and she is ready with the hearing. Having regard to the fact that the rent control petition is of the year 1985, I proceed to dispose of the case with the records available and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondent. 2. The petition for eviction has been filed on grounds of arrears of rent, subletting without written consent of the landlord, change of user of the building and that the building is dilapidated and unfit and unsafe for human habitation. All the contentions were rejected by the Rent Controller except accepting the contention of the Civil Revision No.3249 of 1990 -2- second respondent that he was not a sub tenant but that he had been a direct tenant, having been authorized to put up construction on a land leased out to him. As regards the ground relating to non-payment of rent, the contention of the tenant was that the cost of construction which he had made was permitted to be set off against the rental accruals and the period during which no rent was paid had actually been consumed in setting off the cost of construction. As regards the change of user, the contention of the tenant was that he had been carrying on business in liquor in partnership with the first respondent and that he was always in the use which was permitted. The condition of the building which was said to be unfit and unsafe was found on a point of fact that the building was sufficiently safe to carry on the business and although there were cracks in the building, there had been nothing shown to discredit the integrity of the building itself. 3. The evidence adduced with reference to the nature of construction through Engineer-AW2 was rejected by the Rent Controller by seeing the evidence in the context of examination of a report of an architect-RW2 and his report and site plans. The Rent Controller rejected the contentions of the landlord on every one of the grounds accepting comprehensively what the defence was and dismissed the petition. The appeal that had been filed by the landlord met with the same fate when the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal finding that there was no ground to set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. 4. Before me no arguments are addressed on behalf of the landlord and I see no reasons to interfere with the concurrent findings Civil Revision No.3249 of 1990 -3- rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 16, 2009 Pankaj*