IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.577 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.7.2010 Vijay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Tilak Raj and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant. The landlords/respondents filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner pleading that he is a tenant in the demised shop at the monthly rent of Rs.175/- which was given for running sale of cement. It was alleged that the rent had not been paid since August 1997 and that the shop is lying closed for the last nine months and that the petitioner had impaired the value and utility of the shop rendering it unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petitioner resisted the petition, admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and the terms of the tenancy were pleaded to be oral. He further pleaded that the rent had been paid upto 30.5.1998 and the balance was paid in Court on 6.9.1999. The allegation that the building has been impaired rendering the same unfit for human habitation was denied. C.R.No.577 of 2010 (O&M) -2- On the pleadings of the parties issues were struck and both the parties adduced evidence in support of the issues. Both the Courts below on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be evicted from the demised premises. Aggrieved by the said orders, the instant revision petition has been preferred in which learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no material to show that the shop had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgments. Respondent Tilak Raj examined himself as AW1 and also produced M.R.Anand, Civil Engineer as AW4, according to whose report the condition of the roof was not good and there was leakage therefrom permitting the rain water to enter. He has also reported that big chunks of plaster had fallen down due to old age and loss of strength and adhesive power. Horizontal and vertical cracks were visible at the time of inspection and that the condition of the iron girders was not good. As a conclusion, it was reported that the shop had outlived its life which was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. As against this evidence, the petitioner had not adduced any evidence which could persuade this court to take a contrary view. Having regard to the aforesaid when the findings have been recorded on the basis of the report of expert and in the absence of any other material to the contrary on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, which are C.R.No.577 of 2010 (O&M) -3- accordingly affirmed. Consequently, the revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed. 2.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss