I.S.TIWANA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition by the tenant whose eviction has been ordered under Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act deserve to succeed in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported as 1988(2) RCR 32. The facts found by the authorities under the Act are as follows :
(2.) THE petitioner is in occupation of a godown situated in Chaura Bazar, Purani Kotwali, Ludhiana. There was a Chubara on the first floor which has since been demolished on the ground that the same had become unfit and unsafe for human inhabitation. As a matter of fact, respondent-landlord claims to have been directed by the municipal authorities to demolish that Chubara as the same as per the reports of its Engineers i.e. Haqiqat Rai Overseer (PW4) and Swaran Singh, S.D.O. (PW3) had became unfit and unsafe for human inhabitation. In the light of that the lower appellate Court has concluded that since the Chubara had been render and unsafe for human inhabitation the ground floor i.e. godown itself should also be taken as unfit and unsafe for human habitation. This is so apparent from the appellant finding recorded by the lower appellate Court :- "Therefore, taking into consideration the report of the Overseer of the Corporation and also the fact that Shri B.C. Katyal has not given any information relating to the construction on the first floor it is concluded that the upper portion of the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation and in pursuance of the notice of the Corporation it is be demolished." Thereafter, in the light of certain judgments of this Court and more particularly the one reported as 1982 CLJ (C&Cr.) 233 the Court recorded a conclusion that since the upper portion of the building had become unfit and unsafe human inhabitation and as a matter of fact had been pulled down the lower portion was also to be treated as unfit and unsafe for human inhabitation. In the light of the above noted decision of the Supreme Court these conclusion are wholly unsustainable. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :- "6. On a careful consideration of the matter with reference to the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of opinion that the High Court was not justified in allowing the revision and directing the eviction of the appellant under Section 13(3)(a)(iii). It is true that a roof of one of the rooms on the rear side had fallen down and required replacement but there was no evidence whatever that the entire building or a substantial portion of it was in a damaged condition and consequently the building as a whole had become unfit and unsafe for human inhabitation. Unless the evidence warranted an inference that the falling down of the roof in one room was fully indicative of the damages and weak condition of the entire building, that the collapse of the roof was not a localised event we fail to see how the High Court could have concluded that the entire building had become unsafe and unfit for human inhabitation...."
(3.) IN a nutshell the crux of the judgment is that in such a situation the Court has to advert and concentrate its attention on the portion which is in occupation of the tenant, sought to be evicted, and in case that part of the building in occupation of the tenant cannot be held to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation, his eviction cannot be sought. In the instant case, no finding whatsoever, has been recorded by any authority that the portion in occupation of the respondent i.e. the godown had become unsafe and unfit for human inhabitation. I, therefore, allow this petition and do not feel the necessity of dealing with the merits of the other issues. The net result is that the application of the landlord is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;