Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) AN application for eviction of the Petitioners was filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, by the applicant -Respondents from the demised premises before the Rent Controller.
(2.) RESPONDENT No 1 is a Major in the Army serving somewhere on the borders. It is alleged that the disputed bungalow was purchased by the applicant Respondents on November 12, 1968, for Rs. 22,000/ - fo" personal use and occupation ; that at the time the bunglow was purchased, it was being used as officers Mess on rent at Rs. 100/ - P. M; that the bunglow was not in a very happy condition and its physical condition further deteriorated due to non coupation, misuse and lack of care. It was further alleged that some fixtures and fittings had been removed from the bunglow and the applicant -Respondents brought it to the notice of the officers concerned but no action was taken. As the condition deteriorated from bad to worse. letters were written by the applicant Respondents to the Sub Area Commander but no action was taken. It was pointed out that since the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, the Petitioners were liable to be ejected therefrom. It was also pointed out that the bungalow was required for personal use and occupation by the applicant Respondents and on that score also the ejectment application was liable to succeed. The Petitioners resisted the application and controverted the allegations made in the application The tenancy was, however, admitted. The parties contested on the following issues: 1. Whether the Respondents are liable to be ejected from the premises in dispute on the grounds given in the ejectment application ? 2. Relief. The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 against the applicant Respondents and in favour of the Petitioners and it was held that the premises in dispute were not required by the applicant -Respondents for personal use and occupation. In view of this finding, application for ejectment was dismissed.
(3.) DISSATISFIED by the order of Rent Controller, the applicant -Respondents filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal. It was held that the condition of the premises has been materially impaired both in value and utility and the tenant is responsible for it; and that the premises are unfit for human occupation. Consequently, the appellate authority allowed the application of applicant -Respondents for ejectment of the Petitioner. Hence, this revision petition by them.;