RAM LAL Vs. DAVINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which survives in this revision petition brought against the order of ejectment dated 28.3.1987 passed by the Appellate Authority is to the effect, "whether the respondent can be ejected on the ground that the building is unfit for human habitation" ?

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , the facts found and not disputed in the course of arguments are to the effect that the demised shop is a part of the bigger building constituted of four rooms, though, after an intervening land described as courtyard there is a construction of more than 4/5 rooms. The shop in dispute forms a part of the building constituted of another shop and three rooms on the ground floor and a Chobara on the first floor. The other shop was leased out to one Lahori Ram whose ejectment was sought on the ground of building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In the said proceedings Lahori Ram was ejected, inter alia holding that the shop with him is unfit for human habitation and the said finding has been affirmed right upto the High Court.

(3.) IN the revision petition the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the building cannot be held to be unfit for human habitation solely on the ground that a part of it has become unsafe the finding of the Appellate Authority on appreciation of evidence was also challenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the observation in Piara Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, 1988 (2) RCR 32, to the effect that falling of the roof of one of the rooms and there being no evidence that remaining building was in a damaged condition no ejectment can be ordered on the ground that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. To the similar effect is the law laid down in Amin Chand v. Mohan Lal, 1989(1) RCR 356; Kewal Chand Jain and another v. Jiwan Kumar Kaushal, 1989(2) RCR 285; Lachhman Dass, Proprietor Globe Trading Corporation v. Roshan Lal, 1990(1) RCR 17; Trilok Chand v. Smt. Dropati Devi and ors., 1990(1) RCR 30 and Daulam Ram v. Sadhu Ram and another 1990(1) RCR 34.