In Brief
A shop owner sought eviction of tenants under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming the premises were in dilapidated condition. The Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, and High Court all rejected his claim after examining expert evidence from both sides, finding the shops fit for habitation. The Supreme Court upheld their dismissal, holding that the courts below took a plausible view of the evidence that was not perverse. The Court also rejected the owner's argument regarding a subsequent event (collapse of a structure in 2012), as he failed to substantiate that this was properly raised before the lower courts. The Court permitted the owner to file a fresh petition if current conditions warrant eviction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.