RAM PIARI Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE impugned order of the appellate authority up holding the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of the demised premises being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, warrants no interference in revision.

(2.) THE demised premises consist of a shop with stairs leading from it to the roof of the shop. There are two flights of stairs with a small landing opening on to the roof of the building through a mumti. his is the roof of this mumti which really provides the roof over the shop. It contains a door opening on to the roof of the other part of the building with which this petition is aot concerned.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the roof of the, mumti required repairs. In 1978, proceedings under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act were initiated by the tenant for permission to effect repairs to this roof. These proceedings eventually culminated in March 1983 in the tenant being permitted to repair the roof of the mumti. It is pertinent to note that the prayer of the tenant was that two ballas of the roof may be allowed to be repaired According to the report of the Local Commissioner, appointed by the rent controller, however, the roof bad 29 bottons out of which 15 were new and unpolished while the others were old Four of these old buttons had cracks and had got worn by age. The roof also had two girders which were rusty. In other words, whereas the tenant had asked to replace two buttons, in fact IS had been replaced.