- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Bhagwanti and others, tenants, against the order of the Appellate Authority, Bhantida, dated January 9, 1979.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Smt. Yashodha Devi is owner of a three storyed building and she gave it on lease to Tikka Ram on an annual rent of Rs. 950/-. She moved an application on March 18, 1975, for ejectment of the tenant under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') on the ground that the building had since become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The application was contested by Tikka Ram tenant who controverted the aforesaid allegations and pleaded that the building was neither unsafe nor unfit for human habitation. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the building in dispute has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation 2. Relief. He held that the building cannot be termed as unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Consequently he dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlady went up in appeal against the order of the Rent Controller to the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal Tikka Ram died and his legal representatives Smt. Bhagwanti and others were brought on the record. The appellate Authority accepted the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordered ejectment of the tenants. They have come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this Court.
(3.) The only question that arises for determination is whether the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. Voluminous evidence was led in the case. The Rent Controller also visited the spot. After perusing the evidence both the Authorities gave a concurrent finding that there were cracks in the roof of the barasati and the iron rode were visible to the naked eye. It was further held that the cement plaster in the roof had fallen and the barasati was in an unsafe condition. It was then held that the ground and the first floor wherein good condition and were safe for human habitation. These conclusions of the Authorities have not been challenged before me. The case is, therefore, to be decided on the basis of the aforesaid findings.;