RAVINDER SINGH Vs. MANDIR BHAJLEY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, challenging order of reversal dated 11.3.1999, passed by the learned Appellate Authority directing his ejectment on the ground that demised premises have been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue as to whether the demised premises have been rendered unsafe and unfit for human habitation, are reversed by the learned Appellate Authority. FACTS : A. Earlier ejectment petition filed in 1983

(2.) THE landlord-respondent on 3.9.1983 filed an ejectment application, bearing case No. 92R of 1983 before the learned Rent Controller, Jagadhari. The landlord-respondent had taken various grounds of ejectment, namely, non- payment of rent, change of user from grass cutting to that of a factory and that the demised premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 7.8.1990 (Ex.R-3). On all the issues the Rent Controller had recorded the finding against the landlord-respondent by holding that the rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month, there was no change of user and the demised premises were not unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld by the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord- respondent on 5.11.1992 (Ex.R-4). Against the order of the Appellate Authority a Civil Revision bearing C.R. No. 722 of 1993, was filed before this Court which on 4.7.2007 has been dismissed as withdrawn on the statement made by the learned counsel for the landlord-respondent to the effect that in view of the subsequent ejectment application filed against the tenant-petitioner, which has been allowed, the revision petition was rendered infructuous. B. The subsequent ejectment petition of 1988 relevant to the instant Revision Petition

(3.) IT is appropriate to mention that the report of the expert Shri D.B. Gaur, Executive Engineer (Ex.R-1), was disbelieved wherein he has opined that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, whereas the other report submitted by Shri Hem Chand Goel that the building was safe and fit for human habitation was accepted.