SOM NATH Vs. SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition here is by the tenant seeking to challenge the order of the appellate authority directing his ejectment from the shop in his possession on the ground that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) THERE can be no manner of doubt that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the building, in which the shop is located, is indeed unsafe and unit for human habitation, but counsel for the tenant sought to contend that no evidence has been brought on record to show that the state of the building bad become so after the shop bad been let out to him. In other words, the argument being that eject- ment on the ground of a building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation can only be ordered if the building is shown to have become so after it had been let out to the tenant. This is indeed a wholly untenable contention neither supported by a plain interpretation of the relevant statutory provision nor indeed could counsel cite any judicial precedent in its support.

(3.) IN the present case, it is no doubt true that the shop had been let out to the tenant just about ten months before the application for ejectment was filed against him ; the shop having been taken content in September 1981 and the ejectment petition being filed against him in July 1982 The state of the building as emerges from the evidence on record no doubt suggests that it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation even prior to the date it had been let out to the tenant. This being so, does not, however, provide any defence to the tenant ones it is established that building is indeed and in fact unsafe and unfit for human habitation.