HARNEK SINGH Vs. BIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has directed this revision petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), against the order of the Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Patiala ordering his ejectment from the shop in dispute on the ground of it having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the shop in dispute, located near Nabha Gate, Patiala, was taken on rent by Harnek Singh tenant from Bir Singh landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/ - with effect from November 1, 1971 vide rent note dated October 11, 1971, for a period of 11 1/2 months. The tenant continued occupying this premises after the expiry of contractual period of tenancy and, thus, became a statutory tenant. The landlord sought his ejectment from the premises in dispute on the basis of non payment of rent and the premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller, Patiala dismissed the application of the landlord by holding that the falling of a small portion of the ceiling of one room had not rendered it unsafe and unfit for human habitation The landlord then went in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Patiala, who reversed the findings of the Rent Controller by holding that a portion of the tenanted premises having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the tenant was liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has come up in revision petition before this Court.