- (1.) Cm No.18302-CII of 2016 Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 51 days in re-filing the petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of the counsel, the present application is allowed Delay of 51 days in re-filing the petition stands condoned. CM No.18303-CII of 2016 Prayer in this application is for exemption from filing the typed copies of Annexures. Application is allowed. Exemption from filing the typed copies of Annexures is granted subject to just exceptions. CR No.5939 of 2016 Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Rent Controller, Hisar, whereby an eviction petition preferred by the respondent-landlady has been allowed ordering eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent and that the petitioners-tenants were not residing in the same and has ceased to occupy the demised premises. The appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Hisar, by judgment dated 06.04.2016.
(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings, as has been recorded by the Courts below, cannot sustain, especially in the light of the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied. He contends that apart from this, the finding that the petitioners are not residing in the demised premises, is also incorrect. Similar is the position with regard to the finding with regard to dilapidated condition of the demised premises. Assertion has also been made that the dismissal of the application for additional evidence as filed by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority also cannot sustain as it is only a judgment between the parties which has been rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hisar, in Civil Appeal No.110 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner-Ram Singh against the respondents, where an injunction suit was filed against the respondents as also Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, where the appeal was allowed and the suit as preferred by the petitioner was decreed. He, therefore, contends that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.
(3.) Notice of motion.;