GOPAL SINGH Vs. DEVI CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in the suit premises and the respondents are owners of the same. The ejectment petition was filed against the petitioner and one Charajit Singh on various grounds including the ground that the premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The eviction order was passed on the ground that the premises has become unsafe and unfit for petitioner has filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed. Hence this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the evidence recorded in this case. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the part of the building which is occupied by the petitioner cannot be said to have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation though the other part of the building might have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and, therefore, the eviction order against the petitioner may not fee upheld. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that even the suit premises i.e. the part of the building in possession of the petitioner has also become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and, therefore, the Courts below were right in deciding the case in favour of the respondents.