JAGAN NATH Vs. RAM SARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed at the instance of the landlord aggrieved by the orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority made on an application filed under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') to the effect that minor repairs envisaged under that Section were required to be made at the instance of the tenant-respondent.

(2.) THE facts relevant to the disposal of this petition are given hereunder:the respondent moved an application under Section 12 of the Act that the shop in dispute along with staircase and roof which was in his tenancy was required to be repaired. The petition was contested by the petitioner on various grounds including that the tenancy had come to an end and as such the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did not exist any longer. On merits, it was denied that the shop in dispute needed any repair.

(3.) RELIEF . The Rent Controller after examining the evidence produced by the respective parties decided issue no. 1 in favour of the respondent whereas issue Nos. 2 and 3 were not pressed. As per discussion under issue No. 1 the application filed by the respondent was allowed and the repairs stipulated were ordered to be effected. For arriving at the conclusion aforesaid, the Rent Controller relied on a decision inter parties with respect to the same property dated 8th March, 1991 arising out of an application filed under Section 13 of the Act by the landlord Jagan Nath seeking to evict the respondent on the ground that the shop in dispute had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller dismissed the said application and it is now stated by Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the respondent, that the appeal before the Appellate Authority as also the Civil Revision filed in this Court have already been dismissed affirming the judgment dated 8th March, 1991. It had been found by the Rent controller in that judgment that the shop in dispute was fit for human habitation and required only minor repairs, as has been pleaded by the respondent in the present case. 4. I have considered the evidence and the findings recorded in the present petition and find that the findings of fact warrant no interference. The judgment dated 8th March, 1991 has been affirmed up to this Court in which it had been held that the building was fit for human habitation, but required only minor repairs. This was the precise prayer that had been made by the tenant respondent in his application out of which the present petition arises. I, therefore, find no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. .