AMARJEET Vs. NEELAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , claiming himself to be owner of certain premises, has filed eviction petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, against Respondents, Raj Kumar and Balwant Rai. One of the grounds, on which eviction is sought, is that material repairs, additions and alterations are to be carried out. Petitioner moved an application before learned Rent Controller, seeking direction to the Respondents to allow tenanted premises to be inspected by an expert, for the purpose of seeking expert's opinion, whether intended additions and alterations can be carried out without vacation of the tenanted premises. Application has been dismissed by learned Rent Controller with the observation that landlord -Petitioner had been delaying the disposal of the case as he did not adduce evidence, despite various opportunities having been granted to him.

(2.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

(3.) PETITION stands disposed of accordingly.