The main legal principle established is that the word 'building' includes the integrated larger building as a whole, rather than a part demised to a tenant, influencing the court's decision to allow the ejectment of the tenant.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is landlords petition whose ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller but was dismissed in appeals.

2. The landlords sought the ejectment of their tenant from the demised premises, which consisted of the ground-floor of the building, inter-alia, on the ground that the building, as such, had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It was specifically pleaded that the first floor on the premises in dispute had already fallen and, therefore, the entire building, as such, the demised premises of which is an integral part had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In the Written Statement, it was pleaded on behalf of the tenants that the premises were fit for human living and they had no knowledge if the other portion which was not in their occupation was in a damaged condition. On trial, the learned Rent Controller found that the building was very poor and a dangerous one and, thus, it was unsafe and unfit for human residence. It was also observed that "it is also on record and is, in fact, admitted by the respondent (tenant) himself that he moved an application in this very court for asking the opposite party to remove the malba (debris) which had fallen on the roof of his premises. This would show that the first floor was really falling down naturally and some portion had actually fallen and the other was ordered to be demolished by the Executive Magistrate." In view of this finding, the eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority took the view that the portion which had fallen or was found to be unsafe or unfit for human habitation did not form part of the demised premises, and, therefore, on that ground no eviction order could be passed against the tenant for his eviction from the premises in dispute which, according to the Appellate Authority, were fit for human habitation. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside and the ejectment application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlords have filed this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises in dispute formed an integral part of the building, the first floor of which had already fallen. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in view of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Sardarni Sampran v. Sant Singh (1982 (1) R.C.R. 413) AIR 1982 Punjab Haryana 245, the landlord was entitled to eject his tenant. In view of the said judgment, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the tenant-respondent. It has been held in the said judgment that the word `building includes the integrated larger building as a whole rather than a part thereof demised to a tenant.

4. In this view of the matter, the order of Rent Controller was perfectly legal and that the Appellate Authority set aside the same illegally. Consequently the petition succeeds, the order of the Appellate Authority, is set aside and that of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the tenants is restored with costs. However, the tenants are allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided all the arrears of rent, if any, along with advance rent for three months is deposited with the Rent Controller within a month.