MOHINDER KAUR Vs. KAILASH RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order of ejectment passed by the learned Courts below under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') on the ground that the property in possession of the petitioner tenant has become unfair and unsafe for human habitation.

(2.) IN the petition by the landlord-respondents under Section 13 of the Act, it was claimed that major portion of the property had already fallen and the room in possession of the petitioner had also become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was further claimed that the property was more than 100 years old and the room in possession of the tenant-petitioner was carved out by the landlord-respondents from the back portion which has already fallen. On the basis of the evidence led on record, learned Courts below came to the conclusion that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the shop in dispute.

(3.) I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find no force in the same. It was nowhere proved on record that it was the landlords, who have damaged the property as alleged, rather the documentary and oral evidence on record showed that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce the finding recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court, which reads as under :-