Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition so as to challenge the order of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, confirming that of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby they have been ordered to be evicted from a house situated in the town of Ludhiana at the instance of the landlady
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Santosh Kumari Sood is the landlady of the demised premises. She sought eviction of the Petitioners, from the demised premises on the pleas that the same were unfit(sic) and unsafe for human habitation were required by her for personal use and occupation and that the same stood sublet by Petitioner No. 1 Ram Lal Sunda to Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 who were no others but the brothers of the former ; all three being the sons of one Faqir Chand. The Petitioners admitted the ownership of the landlady. They claimed their father to be the tenant of the building since 1943 and after his death claimed to have continued living therein since then. They denied that the demised premises were unfit or unsafe for human habitation and claimed that this matter had been settled in their favour by the Rent Controller in an earlier petition for the purpose. They also disputed the bona fide requirement of the landlady for personal occupation. The Rent Controller, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: - 1 Whether Respondent No. 1 is a tenant under the applicant ? 2. Whether the building in dispute is unfit and unsafe for human habitation, as alleged ? Whether the applicant bona fide requires the premises in dispute for her personal use and occupation ?
(3.) WHETHER the Respondent is a statutory tenant, and no notice under Section 166(sic) T. P. Act is necessary ?;