M.R.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE respondents filed a petition under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for permission to replace the roof of the shop which they were holding as tenants under the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, after going through the matter, came to the conclusion that the replacement of the roof did not tantamount to making structural alterations and allowed the application.
(2.) AGAINST that order the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. Mr. Anand swarup, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that after admission of the revision petition the petitioner also filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority to safe -guard his rights so that in case this revision petition fails on the ground of non -competence, his appeal does not become time barred. It is thus obvious that the judgment rendered by the learned Rent Controller is simultaneously being challenged before two forums.
(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the entire building has crumbled down which resulted into loss of five lives. According to him apart from the roof, the walls have also crumbled down. He further submits that if the respondents are allowed to put a roof after constructing the walls, the resultant, building would be altogether different from the original building which also had a room on the first floor. On these premises, he has urged that the permission to make the above construction, if given, would tantamount to giving him permission to make structural alterations in the building.;