JUDGMENT

Manisha Batra, J.

CM-12937-CII-2017

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 69 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

Main Case

The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by learned Appellate Authority, Jind whereby, the findings as recorded by learned Rent Controller, Jind thereby, ordering ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground of material impairment of the demised premises, had been reversed and the petition filed by the present revision petitioner for ejectment of the respondent from the same, was dismissed.

2. The present petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short 'Act, 1973') seeking ejectment of the respondent-tenant from the demised shop on the grounds of arrears of rent, value and utility of the shop having been impaired by the respondent by opening a door and window towards western side of the demised shop opening towards the land of the petitioner without its consent and permission and further on the ground that the respondent had committed acts of nuisance by fixing door and window in the western wall of the demised shop.

3. The respondent admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the reply filed by him and submitted that on 21.04.2012, a rent note was executed between them whereby, one plot behind the demised shop was also let out to him and he was authorized to construct a building in the said plot and to join the same in the demised shop. He had given an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner on 28.04.2012 and was also allowed to open door and window in the gali existing towards the western side of the demised shop. He had accordingly raised construction of a building and had opened windows and door with the oral permission of the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner was offended due to the fact that the respondent had appeared as a witness in a rent petition filed by one of its tenants. While denying the allegations that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the demised shop or had committed any act of nuisance, dismissal of the rent petition had been prayed for. It will be relevant to mention here that arrears of rent were tendered on the first day of hearing.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Court of learned Rent Controller vide order dated 05.03.2013:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction order on the grounds as mentioned in the body of the petition? OPP

2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

3. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present petition against the respondent? OPR

4. Whether petitioner has not come in the court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts from the court? OPR

5. Relief.

5. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective assertions. Besides relying upon certain documentary evidence, the petitioner examined his Deputy Manager Bhal Chander as PW-1 whereas the respondent had himself appeared as RW-1. The learned Rent Controller while order dated 23.07.2014, allowed the petition and passed an order for ejectment of the respondent on the ground that he had committed act of material impairment in the value and utility of the shop. However, the other grounds as taken by the petitioner seeking ejectment of the respondent had not been accepted.

6. Feeling aggriev