- (1.) The tenant petitioner was sought to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground that the same had become unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller declined the application on the ground that the shop could be made fit for human habitation by carrying out certain repairs. On appeal, the Appellate Authority accepted the plea and found that the room marked 'Y-3' was in a dangerous condition and could fall any time. The wall intervening the rooms marked Y-2 and Y-3 was also found to have given way to the extent that one could peep into the room marked 'Y-2' through the hole. The appellate Authority, therefore, relying on the inspection note and the report of the local commissioner who also found that apart from the verandah, the remaining portion of the shop was in a dangerous condition, ordered the ejectment of the tenant vide order dated January 27, 1978. Dissatisfied with that order, that tenant has come up in this revision petition.
(2.) The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the third room could be made habitable by carrying out some repairs and for this contention, the learned counsel relied on Maharaj Jagtar Bahadur Singh v. Badri Parshad Seth,1963 PLR 452 and Puran Chand and anr. v. Roshan Lal Advocate, 1975 RCR(Rent) 504. None of these decisions, however, has any bearing on the facts of the present case. Here it has been found by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Local Commissioner that the third room has at least to be rebuilt by demolishing the one in existence. Even the tenant has not disputed the finding of the lower Appellate Court regarding this room in the grounds of revision. It is, therefore proved beyond doubt that a part of the building is not fit for human habitation. As it has not been challenged that where part of the building is found to be unfit for human habitation, order can be made respecting the whole building, there is hardly any merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. That apart, it has been stated at the bar by the learned counsel for the respondent that no shop is in existence on the spot at present. The room on the first floor was got demolished by the Municipal Committee after issuing notice to the landlord. Thereafter, the landlord got the shop vacated from the tenant by executing the ejectment order and demolished the remaining building. On that score also it is not possible now to reverse the impugned order.
(3.) This petition consequently fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.;