BALDEV SAHAI Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner landlord against the Order dated 30th July, 1997, passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gidderbaha. By this order, the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-landlord for directing the respondents-tenant to allow the landlord to enter into the demised premises along with building expert and photographer and inspect the shop in dispute after removing the false ceiling and ply on the wall. The same prayer was made by the landlord which was rejected by the learned Rent Controller and aggrieved by that order, the landlord had filed earlier C. R. No. 3338 of 1996 which was disposed of by this court on 20th August, 1996, which reads as under : "no ground for interference is made out at this stage. Dismissed, let the expert witness appear in the witness box and in case he experiences some problem in making report, it will be open to the petitioner to move an application and the same shall be considered on its merits".

(2.) AFTER the above order was passed by this Court, the landlord examined expert, namely, Virinder Kumar Gupta, who in his statement before the court, stated that the real condition of the building could not be given until and unless the racks and ply of the building were removed. In view of the statement of this witness, the landlord filed the present application, I am informed that even the Expert also filed an application seeking the same relief which was dismissed vide the impugned Order dated 30th July, 1997.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records. I, however, do not find any merit in this petition. From the impugned order, I find that the landlord had filed another petition against the tenant for vacating the same shop on the ground that the tenant had constructed Parchhati in the shop which had impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute. It is not disputed that petition is also pending. In those proceedings, the landlord had examined, the same expert Varinder Kumar Gupta, who had submitted the report with regard to the same shop. In those proceedings the matter came up before this Court in C. R. No. 639 of 1995 and the question before this Court was as to whether the landlord should be permitted to inspect the shop after removing the false ceiling and the ply on the walls. In those proceedings, C. R. No. 639 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 20th July, 1995, the operative portion from the said order is reproduced below: