SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) THIS is tenants' revision petitione under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, directed against the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby after reversing the order of the Rent Controller, the ejectment application of the landlord (respondent herein) has been allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to be ejected from the demised shop on the ground that the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.
(2.) IN the year 1988, the respondent-landlord filed the instant ejectment application against the petitioner-tenant for ejecting them from the shop in question on the grounds of non-payment of rent and the demised shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was the case of the landlord that the shop in dispute being an integral part of the whole building, including other shops and chobaras on the first floor, which is in dilapidated condition and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was averred that the shop can fall at any time, as there are number of cracks in the walls, the floor and the roof of the shop in dispute. The wooden battens of the shop were alleged to have been eaten by ants and motes. The chobara on the first floor of the shop was stated to be in dilapidated condition. The petitioner-tenant contested the said petition. On the first date of hearing, the arrears of rent along with interest and costs, as assessed by the Rent Controller, was tendered. On this, the ground of the non-payment of rent did not survive. Regarding the shop in dispute having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it was stated that the shop is not an integral part of the whole building, including the other shops and chobaras. It was also stated that the shop was in a good condition; and quite safe and fit for human habitation. It was alleged that the ejectment application was filed with a motive to increase the rent. It was disclosed that earlier also, in the year 1984, the landlord had filed an ejectment application on various grounds, including the ground that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Subsequently, the landlord effected a compromise in the said ejectment application and got the rent of the demised shop enhanced from Rs. 700/- to Rs. 2,700/-per annum and thereafter, he got the said ejectment application dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, it was pleaded that the instant ejectment application is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) IN Support of this case, the landlord examined himself as AW1, Pritam Singh, the Building Expert, as AW.2, who proved his report and site plan as EX.A1/X and Ex.A2/X. The landlord also examined Chaman Garg, a photographer, as AW2, who proved the photographs Ex.A1 to Ex. A25 and one Kashmiri Lal as AW4. On the other hand, the tenants examined Deep Chand Goyal as RW1, who was counsel for the landlord in the previous ejectment application, and also placed on record copy of compromise between the parties in the earlier ejectment application as Ex.R1. They also examined Shri R.C. Verma, the Building Expert, as RW.2, who proved his report Ex.R3 and site plan Ex.R4, and Ravi Goyal, Advocate, as RW3. One of the petitioners, namely Vijay Kumar, also appeared as RW4.;