- (1.) The landlords are in revision. The landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short "the Act"] in respect of the demised premises (shop), inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The precise averment made in the eviction petition is as under: 2(b) That the shop fully described in the head note of the application is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and is falling down and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The age of the disputed shop is about 100 years old and the disputed shop is crumbling down. The buildings on the Northern and southern sides of the disputed shop are also in a fallen condition and are unsafe and unfit for human habitation. "
(2.) In reply to the aforesaid paragraphs, it was averred that the demised premises is in a good condition. The landlords wanted to demolish it for letting it out on a higher rate of rent after reconstruction. All other averments made here-in-above in the eviction petition were denied.
(3.) The landlords filed replication in which the averments of para No. 2(b) of the written statement, was denied and that of the eviction petition were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed as many as 3 issues. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. Ram Paul, Photographer was examined as AW 2, who had proved the photographs of the demised premises, and Narinder Singh Bhatia, Building Expert was examined as AW 3 who had proved his report as Ex. AW3/A and site plan as Ex. AW3/B. The tenant examined B. S. Sidhu, Retired S. D. O. (B&R) as RW1, who had proved his report as Ex. R1 and site plan as Ex. R2. Issue No. 1 became redundant after the rent was tendered but issue No. 2 was discussed in detail and the learned Rent Controller decided it against the landlords while dismissing the eviction petition on 31.05.1988.;