Eviction--90 years old building--The fact that the building is old not necessarily render a building unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

Rajive Bhalla, J.

1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the orders dated 2.6.1999 and 27.11.2001 passed by the learned Rent Controller, as also the Appellate Authority, dismissing the rent petition, as also the appeal.

2. The petitioner, filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, praying for ejectment of the respondent from a shop measuring 16x14-3", on the grounds of non payment of rent, the tenanted premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the respondent had replaced the main gate of the shop with a shutter, without the consent of the landlord, thus, impairing the value and utility of the tenanted premises.

3. The petitioner landlord asserted that the respondent has failed to pay rent @ Rs. 40/- p.m. with municipal taxes @ Rs. 6/- p.m. from 1.4.1986. As regards the plea that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it is averred that as the building is about 90 years old, the walls have developed cracks, the wooden battens have been consumed by termites, and as the building is in a dilapidated condition, it is therefore, unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

4. The tenant contested the correctness of the aforementioned assertions but on the first date of hearing, tendered arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4,040/- @ Rs. 40/- p.m. with effect from 1.4.1986 to 31.8.1994, interest of Rs. 1,060/- and costs as assessed by the Rent Controller of Rs. 200/-. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:

1. Whether the respondents are in arrears of rent? OPA

2. Whether the premises in dispute has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and require reconstruction? OPA

3. Whether the respondents without the consent of the petitioner had removed the main gate of the demised premises and affixed a shutter and in this way impaired the value and utility of the premises in dispute? OPA

4. Relief.

5. Under issue No. 1, the learned Rent Controller held that the tenant had tendered the rent due to the landlord and, therefore, decided issue No. 1 against the petitioner. Under issue No. 2, it was held that the landlord had failed to establish that the premises in dispute have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Under issue No. 3, the learned Rent Controller held that the original landlady Smt. Parja Devi had consented to the additions and alterations and, therefore, this issue was also decided against the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority, after a considered appraisal of the pleadings and evidence, as also the findings recorded by the Rent Controller upheld the findings and dismissed the appeal.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the pleas of non payment of rent and that the premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Counsel for the petitioner asserts that, though, the tenant tendered arrears of rent of Rs. 4,040/- @ Rs. 40/- p.m., he was also required to tender municipal taxes @ Rs. 6/-p.m. The tenant admittedly did not tender municipal taxes @ Rs. 6/ p.m. and in fact, contested his obligation to do so. The learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority rightly held that the respondent was required to pay the tax from February 1994 i.e. from the date of service of the demand notice, but thereafter erred while adjusting the excess rent tendered, against the amount of municipal taxes due from the respondent. The learned Courts below had no jurisdiction to adjust the excess rent towards arrears of municipal taxes as the tenant had asserted, in his reply to the ejectment petition, that he was not liable to pay any amount in lieu of the municipal taxes.

8. As regards the findings that the premises in dispute are unfit and unsafe for human habitation, it is asserted that the report Ex.A-5 submitted by the building expert, establishes the age of the build