AMAR NATH ALIAS MOTHU Vs. KISHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom the ejectment application was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but the eviction order was passed by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) KISHAN Kaur, the landlady, sought the ejectment of her two tenants, Amar Nath and Balwinder Singh, who were in occupation of the different portions of the same building. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Amar Nath, petitioner, was the tenant of the portion marked red in the site plan at a monthly rent of Rs. 26/-, whereas Balwinder Singh was the tenant on the portion shown as green in the site plan at the monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. Balwinder Singh was proceeded ex-parte, and the application was contested by Amar Nath, tenant. He pleaded that he was tenant since the life time Bhagat Singh, husband of the landlady, and he was not aware of the fact that Kishan Kaur was the sole owner. He denied that the shop had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation or is in dangerous condition.

(3.) AFTER discussing the entire evidence alongwith the inspection note, the learned Authority came to the conclusion that it is established that the roof of the back room had fallen down, that if the landlady had to construct the back portion, she shall have to demolish and construct new one. If that wall is demolished, the roof of the front room cannot stand. Thus, the landlady as such cannot utilise the building nor can re-construct the new building unless the portion in possession of Amar Nath tenant is also demolished. In view of this finding, it was held that since the portion in occupation of Amar Nath is an integral part of the building which as such has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the tenant was liable to ejectment. Consequently, the ejectment order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.