SUSHEELA MOHAN Vs. LAKHBIR SINGH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 370 days in filing the revision petition. However, since the tenants had been pursuing the remedy of appeal before the first appellate authority, this period is to be excluded. The tenants had been diligently pursuing their remedy before the appellate authority. They had filed an appeal against the order dated 6.8.2009 on 25.8.2009 and the same was dismissed on 30.8.2009. The certified copy of the order dated 6.8.2009 was applied afresh and the same was prepared on 3.9.2010. Thereafter, the same was attested on 6.9.2010 and supplied on 9.9.2010. In these circumstances, the delay in filing the present revision petition is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(2.) Material facts, necessary for adjudication of this revision petition are that the Respondent/landlord (hereinafter referred to as the "landlord" for convenience sake) had instituted a petition before the learned Rent Controller seeking eviction of the Petitioner/tenants (hereinafter referred to as the "tenants" for convenience sake), on the grounds, inter alia, that the suit premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the same was bonafide required by him for the propose of rebuilding and reconstruction and that the tenants had made additions and alterations, which are likely to impair the value and utility of the suit premises and the tenants were also in arrears of rent with effect from 1.1.2001.

(3.) The landlord has mentioned in para 19 of the petition that he had earlier filed eviction petition against the tenants on the grounds that the premises were required for reconstruction. The petition was dismissed for default. The application for restoration of the same was also dismissed on 29.9.2008.