- (1.) This revision petition by the tenants, namely, Rattan Lal and Sohan Lal partners of Messrs Milkhi Ram Harji Ram, a Firm carrying on business in Sadar Bazar, Bhatinda, has been filed against the verdict of the Appellate Authority (District Judge) Bhatinda, by which the said authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and directed the petitioners to deliver possession of the disputed premises to Sohan Lal landlord respondent within four months of the date of the order which was passed on April 30, 1976. The landlord had prayed for the eviction of the tenants, i.e. the Firm and its two partners under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from Shop No. 4967 in Sadar Bazar, Bhatinda, on the grounds of sub-letting and the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. An additional ground was also set up that the premises were required by the landlord for his personal use and occupation. Several issues were framed by the Rent Controller to cover the controversial points as raised in the pleadings of the parties, but for the purpose of this Revision Petition we are to confine ourselves to the only point which has been mooted viz. whether the building is unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the same is therefore required by the landlord for re-construction. The point is covered by Issue No. 4. No other point has been agitated and hence we need not direct our attention on the other issues.
(2.) On the question of the building being unsafe or unfit for human habitation, reference has necessarily to be made to Section 13(3)(iii) of the Act which runs as under :- "In the case of any building or rented land, if he requires it to carry out building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation."
(3.) Both the parties put forward their own version in regard to the constructional durability of the building and in fact, they both examined their respective experts. So far as the respondent landlord is concerned he examined Hakam Singh (A.W.7), a Sectional Officer of the Public Works Department who opined that the building was order than fifty years and its foundation was poor. The construction of the building was made with 'Lahori' type of bricks and the middle walls were 'glephi' (sun dried mud bricks). The roofs were built with wooden planks which were in poor condition and about half of the wooden batons had been eaten away by white ants. Some of the batons had been changed recently. The flooring was of flat bricks and not in good condition, as there was no cement pointing or plastering. The plaster on the walls of the interior side was done with lime and mud and was falling off at different places.;