BHUPINDER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. KEWAL KRISHAN CHHABRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 08.07.2014, rendered by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, eviction of the petitioners from the demised premises had since been ordered. As even the appeal preferred against the said order failed and was dismissed on 31.08.2015, petitioners-tenants are before this court in this revision petition.

(2.) Ejectment of the petitioners was sought on the ground that the premises in question had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as the major portion of the building had already fallen. Most of the tenants in the building had vacated the accommodation in their possession. The building of which demised premises is just a part of, happened to be more than 100 years old. Huge cracks had appeared in the walls and they had become plumb. So much so, even the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, had declared the premises unfit and unsafe for human habitation, under Section 273 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Even, Kartar Singh, the original tenant, had abandoned the premises during his lifetime due to its ruinous condition and had started living with his son at Chandigarh before his death. That being so, the premises was lying closed since October, 1996. Resultantly, petitioners-tenants had even ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months preceding the institution of the eviction petition.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded, inter alia, that the eviction petition was filed as a counter-blast to the petition filed by predecessor-in-interest of the tenants under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, 'the Act'). But, it was also maintained that the respondent was not the owner as also the landlord of the entire property. Thus, petitioners were not tenants under the respondent.