Babu Ram vs Lachhman Dass

V.K. Jhanji, J.—Respondent, who is a landlord, filed an ejectment application before the Rent Controller for the ejectment of his tenant, Babu Ram, on the ground that he has impaired the value and utility of the premises by covering the verandah and making it a part of the shop. The petition was contested by the tenant. Both the authorities below on the appreciation of evidence, returned a finding in favour of the landlord and ordered ejectment of the tenant. The orders of the Authorities below are being impugned in this revision petition.

This revision petition was filed by tenant. Babu Ram. He is stated to have died in September, 1980. His legal representatives have not come forward to be impleaded as parties in his place. I have heard the learned counsel and find that the Authorities below on the appreciation of evidence, have returned a finding of fact and, therefore, the impugned order calls for no interference. Otherwise also, counsel for the tenant has not been able to point out any evidence on the record which would persuade me to take a view contrary to the one taken by the Authorities below.

Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

In the connecting revision petition i.e., C.R. No. 445 of 1986, which relates to the adjoining shop, I have allowed three year''s time to the tenant to vacate the disputed shop in his possession. In this case as well, three years'' time allowed to the legal representatives of the tenant to vacate the disputed shop provided they pay/deposit the entire arrears of rent within two month and continue to pay the future rent for three years by the 15th of each month. This is in addition in their filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller that they shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises on or before expiry of the aforesaid period.