Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) IN this revision filed by the land -ladies under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the issue involved is whether the respondent tenant is liable to be ejected on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, which is one of the grounds of ejectment of the tenant under Section 13 of the Act.
(2.) IN this case, the demised premises is a shop which was let out to the respondent tenant by the previous landlady Smt. Kaushalaya Rani at a monthly rent of Rs. 3007 -. Subsequently, the petitioners purchased the property of Smt. Kaushalaya Rani, including the demised shop in the year 1988. Thereafter, they filed the instant ejectment application against the respondent tenant on various grounds, including on the ground that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller vide its order dated 25.10.1991 ordered the ejectment of the respondent tenant while holding that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. However, on appeal the Appellate Authority has set aside the said order while observing that the landladies have not been able to prove that the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for, human habitation.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally and contrary to the evidence available on the record while reversing the order of the Rent Controller. He submits that he petitioners have led sufficient evidence on the record which clearly establish that the demised premises is in dilapidated condition and the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. He referred to the statement of AWl -Parmod Chander, who proved his report Ex. A1 and the site plan prepared by him as Ex. A2. In his report, the Expert has categorically stated that the entire building, including the demised premises, which is more than 80 years old, is in dilapidated condition and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. He submits that he other evidence led by the petitioners, i.e. report of the Local Commissioner Ex. A3 and the statement of the other witnesses, and even the evidence led by the respondent tenant clearly indicate the demised premises is in dilapidated condition. Learned Counsel further submits that he learned Rent Controller while taking into consideration all those evidence has come to the following conclusion: From the report of Expert Ex. A -1, it is clear that the demise premises are constructed with Nanakshahi bricks and it is common knowledge that Nanakshahi bricks went into disuse about 80/90 years back. So it can be safely said that the premises in dispute are about 80/90 years old. It is in evidence of applicants that room over the demise premises has partly fallen and same is clear from the report of the site plan prepared by the Expert Ex. A.2. From the evidence on the file, it is clear that demise premises are part of bigger building and from the evidence it is clear that roofs of back rooms have fallen down and roof of the chaubara over the demise premises has also partly fallen down. To the similar effect is the site plan Ex. R2 prepared by Expert produced by the respondent.;