(1.) The question posed for determination by the Division Bench in the reference order of the learned single Judge is in the following terms:-
(2.) At the outset, however, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the core question here can be more felicitously formulated in general terms as under:-
(3.) The fact may be delineated with relative brevity with particular reference to the question aforesaid. 3-A. An application under S. 13 was preferred by Sampuran Kaur and Rajinder Kaur against their tenants Sant Singh and the firm M/s. Sobha Singh Sant Singh for their ejectment from the shop No. 203 situate in Sadar Bazar, Kapurthala. One of the grounds which was pointedly pressed before the Courts below was that the landladies sought eviction because the building was in a dilapidated condition, and was unfit for human habitation and the whole of it was needed for the reconstruction thereon. The stand on behalf of the petitioners was that the demised premises, namely, the shop was part and parcel of a bigger building, which consisted of a ground floor and the first floor. Another adjoining shop towards the west was shown in the site plan Exhibit AW4/2 to be in dilapidated condition and in possession of the petitioners themselves. The back portion of the ground floor was also shown to be demolished. It was also the stand that there was evidence to show that a part of the building on the first floor was burnt and the rest had fallen with the result that there was no habitable construction on the first floor. The trial Court on this aspect of the case came to the conclusion that it was not established that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation within the ambit of S. 13(3)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter called 'the Act' and consequently dismissed the ejectment application. On appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved the landladies have preferred the present revision petition.