MULKH RAJ Vs. HARI CHAND AND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant-petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the appellate Authority, Ferozepur, dated January 21, 1977, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dated September, 20, 1975, directing his ejectment was maintained.

(2.) The premises, in dispute, consist of a shop which is a part of the building which comprises of three khans. ln front portion, the demised premises, were given on rent to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- with effect from May 1, 1969. The landlords respondents sought the ejectment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the building had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. In the ejectment application it was stated that the structure of the building was in a bad condition and its roof had fallen and for the purpose of its reconstruction, it was necessary for the landlords to get it vacated, but the petitioner did not allow them access to the part of the building alleged to be in their possession as the owners, and for that reason they had not been able to look after that part of the building which was also in a dilapidated conditions. This was contested by the petitioner and on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that for the purposes of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, (hereinafter called the Act), in view of section 2 (a) the term "building" inter alia means any building or part of a building let for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, and therefore the landlords were entitled to evict the petitioner only if the demised premises, which consisted of a shop, had become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. If the other portion of the building had collapsed or needed any reconstruction that by itself will not entitle the landlords to claim the ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises which have not been found to be unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It was further contended by the learned counsel, that if the landlords are required to replace the roof of the portion of the building in their possession, it does not amount to reconstruction, but would, at the most, be said to be the necessary repairs to the building and thus, it does not entitle them to claim ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of the building being unsafe or unfit for human habitation. In support of this contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on Jag Mohan Singh v. Shrimati Bimla Devi, 1975 RCR(Rent) 506. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and it being a finding of fact could not be interfered with by this court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It was also contended that the demised premises are a part of the building which is in possession of the landlords and if the portion of the building in their possession has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the petitioner is liable to be ejected from the demised premises on this ground alone.