VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1711 and 1712 of 1986 involving common questions of law and facts. For the facility of reference, facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 1711 of 1986.
(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of ejectment dated 11.10.1984 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, in a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrict Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the demised shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that of the Appellate Authority dated 19.5.1986 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondent-landlords claimed that Mohan Lal was a tenant under them @ Rs. 8/- (Rs. eight) per month in the demised shop. It is the case of the respondent-landlords that that Tej Kumar and Mohinder Kaur sold their shares in the demised building in favour of Lakhbir Singh vide sale deed dated 1.6.1981. It was claimed that the respondent-landlords had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the tenant and in that case the petitioner herein admitted that he was a tenant in the demised building under the respondent-landlord. It was, therefore, claimed that the respondent- landlords were entitled to file this application for his eviction. It was also the case set up by the respondent-landlords that as per judgment dated 24th April, 1979 passed by the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Ajnala, Tej Kaur and Mohinder Kaur daughters of Pala Singh were held to be owners of the property left by Balwant Singh and Dalip Singh, sons of Pala Singh to the extent of 1/4th share each and Lakhbir Singh purchased the said share vide sale-deed dated 1.6.1981.
(3.) THE ejectment was sought on the grounds of non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1981 till the date of the petition and that the demised shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was claimed that the roof of the demised premises was damaged and likely to fall at any time. It was also the case of the respondents that the cracks had appeared in the walls and the shop was in a dilapidated condition. It was also the case set up that the tenant has used the demised shop in such a manner that reduced its value and utility.;