BALBIR SINGH Vs. BODH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY , the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. An intervening wall between the two rooms was removed by the tenant thus converting the two rooms into one and the tenant has, thus impaired the value and utility of the building.

(2.) THE facts pleaded by the landlord in the ejectment petition may be noticed at this stage. It was pleaded that the shop in dispute is more than 100 years old. Its first storey has a fallen roof in part. The remaining part of the shop in dispute is in a very dangerous and bad condition. The walls of the shop in dispute are out of plums and have big cracks. Even the beams and rafters are bent and moth eaten. Thus the shop is in a dangerous condition and is unfit for human habitation. The landlord proposes to rebuild the shop in dispute along with its upper portion. In so far as the ground of material impairment of the value and utility of the building is concerned, it was pleaded that previously the shop in dispute consisted of two rooms and there was a wall as well as doors intervening the said rooms and the tenant has illegally removed the wall as well as the doors thereby materially changed and altered the condition of the shop in dispute which has materially diminished its value and utility.

(3.) IN this revision petition the only ground pressed for the ejectment is that the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was urged that it is the condition of the entire building which is to be seen and not of the demised premises that is the shop alone.