(1.) THIS is landlord's petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE landlord-petitioner sought the ejectment of the tenant-respondent from the premises, in dispute, which is a shop situated in Thanesar inter-alia on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for the human habitation. The application was contested on behalf of the tenant and it was pleaded that the shop, in question, which are the rented premises, was in a good condition. The alleged portion which had been fallen, did not form part of the tenancy and, therefore, its falling down was of no consequence. A plea was also taken that before the filing of the ejectment application, necessary repairs had been made and therefore the building was no more unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller found that a part of the roof of the demised premised had fallen and re-erected. There were several cracks in the shop though repaired and that the said repairs were effected in July, 1971, after the institution of the ejectment application. Thus, the tenant could not take advantage of the subsequent events for which he himself was responsible. So, it was held that the shop, in dispute, was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In spite of giving this finding the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that no notice under section 106, Transfer of Property was given by the landlord terminating the tenancy. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the trial Court that notice under section 106 of the above-said Act, terminating the tenancy was required to be given in the case. As to the finding of the trial court recorded to the effect that the building was unsafe and unfit for habitation, the Appellate Authority held that the premises, in question were not unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It also held that the repairs to the premises were effected by the tenant before the filing of the ejectment application. As a result, the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the ejectment application was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has come up in revision this Court.
(3.) IT has been held in Sardarni Sampuran Kaur's case (supra), that if the substantial part of the integrated larger building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation the tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof under section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, despite the fact that the particular portion in his occupation may not be so. Similarly, in Balbir Singh's case (supra), it has been held that the tenant cannot take advantage of his own wrong by making necessary repairs as to disentitle the landlord for claiming his ejectment on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for the human habitation. Once a right accrues to the landlord to eject the tenant, the latter cannot carry out the repairs himself to defeat the said right of the landlord. In view of the judgments in the above said two Division Bench cases, no meaningful arguments could be raised on behalf of the tenant to sustain the order of the authorities below.