- (1.) Harchand Singh, the tenant-petitioner, has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Barnala, dated November 22, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, directing his ejectment, was maintained.
(2.) Devi Dayal, the landlord-respondent, sought the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises, in dispute, which consisted of one half portion of a chhappar, one half portion of verandah and one half portion of kotha on the ground that the same had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the tenant, it was pleaded that he had taken only one half portion of chhappar, one half portion of the verandah and had never taken any kotha on rent as alleged by the landlord. The execution of the rent note, Exhibit A.6, dated September 1, 1963, was admitted by him. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the shop, in dispute, is in a dilapidated condition and is unfit for human habitation and the applicant wants to reconstruct the shop, in dispute ? 2. Whether the tender of rent is not valid ? 3. Relief. On issue No. 1, it was held by the Rent Controller that the shop, in dispute, was in a dilapidated condition and had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Issue No. 2 was not pressed as the learned counsel for the landlord had conceded at the bar that the tender of arrears of rent had been validly made by the tenant. Consequently, the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. On appeal, this finding of the learned Rent Controller has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the tenant has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that it has been wrongly held by the Appellate Authority that the tenant took the entire premises, as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the application for eviction, filed by the landlord.;