Firm Des Raj Chander Bhan vs Smt. Ramlubhai and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is tenant''s petition against whom the eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

The landlords sought the ejectment of their tenants from the building in depute, which consists of a tavela, bearing no, 526/6 situated in Amritsar. The ejectment was sought primarily on the ground that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the landlords bonafide required the premises lor their use and occupation. Those allegations were controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of the tenants. The learned Rent Controller found that the premises, in question, were residential and were bonafide required for the personal use and occupation of the landlords. It was further found that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of the bonafide requirement of the landlords as it was found that the premises, in dispute, were not residential. However, on the question of the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the finding of the Rent Controller was maintained. Thus, the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was affirmed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenants have come up in revision to this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that though some portion of the building had collapsed, yet the tenants occupying the said portion are still there and no steps have been taken by the landlords to eject them therefrom. Thus, argued the learned counsel, under the circumstances, it could not be held that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

Admittedly, some portion of the building had collapsed and the roof of the stair-case had also collapsed and was lying inside the building. This Is the upper portion of the demised premises. That being so, it could not be successfully argued that the building had not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as to seek the ejectment of the tenants. Besides, there is nothing on the record to show that the fallen portion was being occupied by anybody as a tenant. In any case, that is immaterial once it is found that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

In this view of the matter, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. However, the petitioners are slewed two months'' time to vacate the premises; provided all the arrears, if any, and the advance rent for two months are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month.

Revision petition dismissed.