LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-812

BANSI LAL Vs. BALBIR KAUR

Decided On September 23, 2015
BANSI LAL Appellant
V/S
BALBIR KAUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 15.09.2014 by which the ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered, who is a tenant in the demised premises, which order has been upheld in an appeal preferred by him, by the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, on 17.08.2015.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that two grounds were taken by the respondent-landlady for evicting the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises, one was the non-payment of rent and the other was the dilapidated condition of the shop which made the premises unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The plea with regard to non-payment of rent has been dropped by the respondent-landlady and the only plea which has been pressed into service is that the demised premises is unsafe and unfit for human habitation. He contends that the findings on this plea have been recorded merely on the basis of the statement of the petitioner in his cross-examination which cannot be made the basis for passing such an order especially when there has been no expert evidence produced by the respondent-landlady. Even the landlady has not appeared in the witness box and her Power of Attorney has appeared as a witness and therefore, the petition itself could not be allowed. His further submission is that no specific issue with regard to the condition of the shop has been framed. The only issue No.2 which has been framed by the Court is "whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised premises "OPA" which would not be sufficient for the purpose of giving such a finding which would require ejectment of the petitioner. He, accordingly, contends that the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, and the Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot be sustained.

(3.) Counsel for the caveator, on the other hand, states that during the execution proceedings, the shop has already been vacated and the possession has been taken over by the landlady. He supports the orders impugned in the present revision petition.