RAM PIARI Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition was initially filed by Shri Nand Lal Dhingra, Advocate. However, after his death, registered notices were sent to the petitioners in pursuance of order dated 20.11.2002. However, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, I have gone through the orders passed by the authorities below and examined the records as well.

(2.) THE present petition is by the landlady challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment. However, the same was set aside by the Appellate Authority after considering the evidence to the effect that these two doors were opened by the landlord of the adjoining shop and with the consent of the present landlady. There is nothing to controvert the statement of R.W.1 B.P. Gupta, who has stated that the landlady used to come to their office to collect the rent. Thus, the opening of the doors was known to the landlady at least for the said period of 9-10 years. Thus, it is apparent that the landlady had acquiesced in opening of the doors and thus, it cannot be said that the tenant has materially impaired the value and utility of the building.