JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

CM-8141-CII-2023

This is an application filed by the respondent under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC read with section 151 CPC for placing on record additional documents.

No ground is made out to place on record the additional documents. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

CR No.2483 of 2016

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, praying for setting aside the order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ambala vide which the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala, evicting the respondent from demised premises, was set aside, with a further prayer for upholding the order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Rent Controller, Ambala; along with certain other prayers.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had filed eviction petition Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973; against the respondent regarding the property bearing house tax No.3636, Timber Market, Ambala Cantonment. It was stated that earlier Smt. Indro Wati, widow of Madan Mohan was the owner of said property. After her death the petitioner being widow of predeceased son and also by virtue of the last Will dated 22.11.2002 became the owner of the premises. The respondent had taken a portion of the said property, i.e., two rooms on monthly rent of ^5,000/- per month for a period of 11 months in the year 2002. However, in the year 2009 the respondent-tenant stopped paying the rent and the rent for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2012 became outstanding. Still further the tenanted premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and was in dilapidated condition being a construction of more than about 100 years old. Asserting these facts, the eviction petition was filed against the respondent-tenant. The parties led their respective evidence, including examining the experts along with their reports. During the pendency of the petition the assessed rent was paid by the respondent. Therefore, the said ground was not retained as a ground for eviction of the respondent. However, vide order dated 14.07.2015 the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the respondent on the ground of the building in question having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

3. Challenging the said order respondent-tenant had filed appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal has been accepted and the order of eviction, passed by the Rent Controller, has been set aside vide order dated 20.01.2016. It is challenging the said order passed by the appellate authority that the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord.

4. Arguing the case learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the lower appellate authority are perverse. Evidence led by the petitioner has been totally ignored. It had come in the report of the expert examined by the petitioner that there were cracks measuring 3 to 5 inches in width. Despite that the lower appellate court has recorded that there are no cracks in the building. It is further submitted that the lower appellate court has gone wrong in law in recording factually incorrect findings that no photographs were taken by the expert of the petitioner from inside the building. In fact, there are as many as three photographs taken from inside and all those photographs show either the crack or the repair made by respondent to conceal the cracks. Beyond that the photographs