JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The unsuccessful landlord has approached this Court assailing the judgments passed by the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority vide which, the petitioner-landlord was non-suited in an eviction petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants from a shop situated on Bus Stand Link Road, Hansi, District Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises) on the ground of non-payment of rent and the tenanted premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

2. In the eviction petition, it was claimed that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises (fully described in the petition). It was under the tenancy of one Sh. Laxman Dass. After the death of Sh. Laxman Dass, the respondents had become the tenants, being his legal heirs. The rent was Rs.125/-per month. Eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of rent since 01.11.2006 and the tenanted premises, which was an integral part of a big buildings Marked as A. C. D. and F in the site plan had outlived its life and had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was averred in the eviction petition that the entire building, of which the tenanted premises was a part was more than 50 years old, was made of bricks in mud mortar, was in a dilapidated condition, some portion of the building had already fallen down and the remaining could fall at any time, the adhesive material had lost its strength, the entire building and the tenanted premises had developed big cracks, the wooden batons (Karries) had got bent and had also been damaged as having been infested with termites, the floor level of the entire building had become 3 feet lower than the level of the road, a fatal accident had already taken place wherein one Hari Chand had died on account of electrocution as rain water had accumulated and that even a notice bearing serial No.4252 dated 27.07.2006 had been issued by the Municipal Council, Hansi stating that the entire building including the tenanted premises had become unsafe and unfit. As per the petition, by way of the said notice, the petitioner had been directed to get the entire building demolished with a view to avoid any further loss.

3. The eviction petition was resisted by the respondents-tenants. The grounds of eviction, as pleaded, were denied. It was averred that the respondents-tenants were not in arrears of rent and that the tenanted premises had not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

4. The Rent Controller framed the following issues for adjudication:-

1. Whether the respondent is liable to be ejected from the room in question on the ground as mentioned in the petition?OPR

2. Whether the petitioner has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present petition?OPR

3. Whether the petitioner is e-stopped to file the present petition by his own act and conduct?OPR

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

5. Whether the court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition? OPR

6. Relief.

5. Parties led their respective evidence. After consideration of the same, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition holding that the petitioner could not prove that the respondents-tenants were in arrears of rent. The petitioner could