Aggrieved thereby the landlord filed two appeals before the appellate authority, one against the rejection of his petition for eviction and the other permitting the appellants to effect repairs.
Facts leading to the filing of the appeals and the special leave petition are as under.
Relying upon the report submitted by the Local Commissioner and the evidence already on record the authority companycluded that the disputed premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and accordingly, allowed both the appeals and directed the appellants to vacate the premises.
Before taking up the three revision petitions for hearing together, the High Court also appointed an advocate of the Court as a Local Commissioner for inspection of the premises tenanted to the appellants.
Taking into companysideration the report submitted by the Commissioner and the other materials on record the High Court disposed of all the three revision petitions by the impugned judgment, by allowing the revision petition of the respondent but dismissing both the petitions filed by the appellants.
Assailing the companymon judgment of the appellate authority the appellants filed two revision petitions in the High Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. MUKHERJEE, J. The two appeals and the special leave petition have been heard together as they stem from a companymon judgment delivered by the From the Judgment and Order dated 21 9 1985 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.R. No.
While the two appeals before us are directed against the orders passed on the petitions seeking eviction, the special leave petition has been filed against the order rejecting the prayer of the appellants to effect repairs.
In companyrse of the proceedings initiated thereupon against the appellants they moved an application seeking permission to effect repairs to their tenanted premises.
During the pendency of the appeals, the appellate authority appointed an advocate as Local Commissioner to inspect the disputed premises and submit a report about its companydition.
On companysideration of the evidence adduced by the parties the Rent Controller rejected the petition for eviction but allowed the application of the appellants for repairs by a companymon order dated April 28, 1987.
In the meantime the Controller had allowed the petition filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the respondent and the appeal preferred against her eviction having stood dismissed, she filed a revision petition in the High Court.
The High Court also directed the Commissioner to ascertain whether the premises tenanted to the respondent were an integral part of the same building or number.
1342 of 1985 Punjab and Haryana High Court disposing of three civil revision petitions.
One La1 Chand Bansal number dead and represented by his legal representatives , hereinafter referred to as the landlord, filed two separate and successive petitions, before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of his tenants Amar Nath and Sugan Chand, hereinafter referred to as the appellants, and Smt Maya Devi, hereinafter referred to as the respondent from the premises in their respective possession primarily on the ground that they were unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
