RANJIT SINGH, J. - (1.) TENANT -petitioner has filed this revision petition impugning the order of the Appellate Court directing his ejectment from the demises premises. The Rent Controller had dismissed the petition filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the petitioner.
(2.) THE landlord had sought ejectment of the petitioner from House No. 4990, Mohalla Gopal Sahai, Ambala Cantt on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the same and it was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The plea of sub- letting and regarding carrying out additions and alterations without the consent of the landlord leading to impairment of its value and utility were also made. The case set up is that this house was let out to deceased Des Raj predecessor-in-interest of Darshan Lal, Tilak Raj, Chunni Lal and Pishori Lal. His wife Ram Rakhi was residing with Des Raj. Darshan Lal is employed at Jalandhar and is presently settled there. Tilak Raj is statedly employed at Chandigarh and is settled there. When Des Raj died in the month of February, 1984, Darshan Lal his son locked the premises in dispute and went to stay with his sons. Thus, the demised premises remained un-occupied without sufficient cause from the month of February, 1984 till the date of filing the petition, i.e., 6.9.1986. It is on this count pleaded that the condition of the house has deteriorated and it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It is pleaded that the roof of kitchen has fallen, walls have developed cracks and would require reconstruction. Allegation of sub-letting the premises in question to Pishori Lal and Chuni Lal sons of Dewan Chand is also made, which is without any written consent from the landlord. It is further pleaded that sub-tenants have removed the roof of the kitchen and portion of the wall and so also the windows and doors. Thus, the value of the property has been impaired.
(3.) IT is seen that respondent No. 1 is the main contesting respondent and has filed written statement controverting the averments made by the appellant. Other respondents were proceeding against ex-parte as they did not appear despite service. It is pleaded by the contested respondent that she never left the house un-occupied and has not locked the same. The averment in regard to the kitchen roof having fallen and that she having shifted to Jalandhar and further that the walls have developed cracks also denied. Accordingly, it is denied that the house has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Allegation of sub-letting is also denied and so also the averment in regard to the addition and alteration as pointed out above. Having regard to respective stands of the parties, following issues were framed :- 1) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent ? OPP. 2) Whether the respondents ceased to occupy the premises without sufficient cause from Feb., 1984, till filing of the petition ? OPP. 3) Whether the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPP. 4) Whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have sublet the premises to respondents No. 4 and 5, alleged ? OPP. 5) Whether the respondents are liable for eviction on the ground of material addition or alteration ? OPP. 6) Relief. ;