S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority dated May 18. 1977, whereby ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the tenant petitioner was confirmed.
(2.) The ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered on the ground that the shop in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority inspected the shop in dispute and have incorporated their impressions. In detail, in their respective judgments. From the inspection of the shop It was found that its three rooms were absolutely unsafe and were not even put to use by the tenant. In the front room, rafters of the roof had been made to stand only by extra support and in numerable cracks had appeared. In the walls of the rooms. These facts fully justify the finding that the shop in dispute is unfit for human habitation. The learned counsel, however, urged that as no notice has yet been given by the Municipal Committee for the demolition of the shop in dispute, it cannot be said that the shop has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The argument is wholly misconceived. If the Municipal Committee has failed to issue notice as provided under the statute, it would be no ground to hold that the shop is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation even when it is found by both the authorities on inspection to be in dangerous condition.
(3.) The other objection raised by the learned counsel that inspection note ought to have been separately placed on the record is too technical an objection to be of any consequence. Moreover, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1978, the proceedings are not regulated by Code of Civil Procedure and the authorities are to be guided by the principles of fair play and natural justice. There being no requirement of law that the inspection note should have been separately recorded by the authorities below, the order of eviction would nut be open to attack on this ground.;