KRISHAN LAL Vs. MADAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord-petitioner sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute which is a shop situated in Thanesar, inter alia, on the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation The application was contested on behalf of the tenant and is was pleaded that the shop in question, which was rented premises, was in a good condition. The alleged portion which had fallen, did not form part of the tenancy and, therefore, its falling down was of no consequence. A plea was also taken that before the filing of the ejectment application necessary repairs had been made and, therefore, the building was no more unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller found that a part of the roof of the demised premises had fallen and re-erected. There were several cracks in the shop though repaired and that the said repairs were effected in July, 1971, after the institution of the ejectment application. Thus, the tenant could not take advantage of the subsequent events for which he himself was responsible. So, if was held that the shop in dispute was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In spite of giving this finding the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that no notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was given by the landlord terminating the tenancy In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the trial Court that notice under Section 106 of the said Act, terminating the tenancy was required to be given in the case. As to the finding of the trial Court recorded to the effect that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the Appellate Authority held that the premises, in question, were not unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It also held that the repairs to the premises were effected by the tenant before the filing of the ejectment application. As a result thereof, the order of the Rent Controller, was maintained.

(3.) EARLIER this case was decided on 31st October, 1983, whereby the revision petition was accepted and eviction order was passed.