A tenant of a demised premises which are an integral part of a larger building can be ejected under the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, on the ground of the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation despite the fact that the particular portion in the occupation of the tenant may not be so.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The question posed for determination by the Division Bench in the reference order of the learned single Judge is in the following terms:-

"Whether the ejectment of a person, who is a tenant of a demised premises which is part and parcel of a bigger building, can be ordered, to enable the landlady to reconstruct the dilapidated building if the other portion of the building which is in possession of the landlady is found to be unsafe for human habitation?"

2. At the outset, however, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the core question here can be more felicitously formulated in general terms as under :-

"Whether a tenant of the demised premises which are an integral part of a larger building can be ejected under the provisions of Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , on the ground of the building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation despite the fact that the particular portion in the occupation of the tenant may not be so."

3. The facts may be delineated with relative brevity with particular reference to the question aforesaid. 3-A. An application under S.13 was preferred by Sampuran Kaur and Rajinder Kaur against their tenants Sant Singh and the firm M/s. Sobha Singh Sant Singh for their ejectment from the shop No.203 situate in Sadar Bazar, Kapurthala. One of the grounds which was pointedly pressed before the Courts below was that the landladies sought eviction because the building was in a dilapidated condition, and was unfit for human habitation and the whole of it was needed for the reconstruction thereon. The stand on behalf of the petitioners was that the demised premises, namely, the shop was part and parcel of a bigger building, which consisted of a ground floor and the first floor. Another adjoining shop towards the west was shown in the site plan Exhibit AW4/2 to be in dilapidated condition and in possession of the petitioners themselves. The back portion of the ground floor was also shown to be demolished. It was also the stand that there was evidence to show that a part of the building on the first floor was burnt and the rest had fallen with the result that there was no habitable construction on the first floor. The trial Court on this aspect of the case came to the conclusion that it was not established that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation within the ambit of S.13(3)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , hereinafter called the Act and consequently dismissed the ejectment application. On appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved the landladies have preferred the present revision petition.

4. When the case came up before the learned single Judge, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that on the established evidence on the record, coupled with the fact that there were also cracks on the walls of the premises demised to the tenants as well, the ejectment application should have been allowed by the Rent Controller. Particular reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Smt. Shakuntala Devi V/s. Daulat Ram, (1967) 69 Pun LR 251; Ranjit Kaur V/s. Piar Singh, (1968) 70 Pun LR 803 and Parkash Chand V/s. Jagdish Rai, 1975 Ren CJ (SN) 11 (Pun and Har), to contend that if the demised premises were part and parcel of a larger building which was in a dilapidated condition and therefore unsafe and unfit for human habitation, then the ejectment of the tenant could be ordered on that ground.

5. However, on behalf of the respondent-tenant, particular reliance was placed on C.R. No.1711 of 1977, Amar Nath V/s. Nand Kishore, decided on the 18th of April, 1980. Resting on the observations made therein it was contended that the fact of some portion of the building in possession of the landlord being unfit and unsafe for human habitation would be extraneous and of no consequence for furnishing any gro