AMAR NATH SUGAN CHAND LAL CHAND AMAR NATH SUGAN CHAND Vs. LAL CHAND BANSAL:MAYA DEVI:LAL CHAND BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals and the special leave petition have h been heard together as they stem from a common judgment delivered by thepunjab and Haryana High court disposing of three civil revision petitions. Facts leading to the filing of the appeals and the special leave petition are as under.

(2.) One Lal Chand Bansal (now dead and represented by his legal representatives) , hereinafter referred to as the landlord', filed two separate and successive petitions, before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of his tenants Amar Nath and Sugan Chand, hereinafter referred to as the 'appellants', and Smt Maya Devi, hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent' from the premises in their respective possession primarily on the ground that they were unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In course of the proceedings initiated thereupon against the appellants they moved an application seeking permission to effect repairs to their tenanted premises. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties the Rent Controller rejected the petition for eviction but allowed the application of the appellants for repairs by a common order dated 28/04/1987. Aggrieved thereby the landlord filed two appeals before the appellate authority, one against the rejection of his petition for eviction and the other permitting the appellants to effect repairs. During the pendency of the appeals, the appellate authority appointed an advocate as Local Commissioner to inspect the disputed premises and submit a report about its condition. Relying upon the report submitted by the Local Commissioner and the evidence already on record the authority concluded that the disputed premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and accordingly, allowed both the appeals and directed the appellants to vacate the premises. Assailing the common judgment of the appellate authority the appellants filed two revision petitions in the High court.

(3.) In the meantime the Controller had allowed the petition filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the respondent and the appeal preferred against her eviction having stood dismissed, she filed a revision petition in the High court. Before taking up the three revision petitions for hearing together, the High court also appointed an advocate of the court as a Local Commissioner for inspection of the premises tenanted to the appellants. The High court also directed the Commissioner to ascertain whether the premises tenanted to the respondent were an integral part of the same building or not. Taking into consideration the report submitted by the Commissioner and the other materials on record the High court disposed of all the three revision petitions by the impugned judgment, by allowing the revision petition of the respondent but dismissing both the petitions filed by the appellants. While the two appeals before us are directed against the orders passed on the petitions seeking eviction, the special leave petition has been filed against the order rejecting the prayer of the appellants to effect repairs.