A tenant of a demised premises which is a part of an integrated larger building can be evicted under 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 of the tenant may not be so.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed by Narinder Nath, hereinafter described as "the petitioners", directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 16.3.1992 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Amritsar, dated 13.1.1993. An order of eviction was passed against the petitioners which was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

2. The relevant facts are that a petition for eviction had been filed by the respondents against the petitioners with respect to the demised premises. It has been alleged that the demised property forms part of a integral larger residential building bearing No. 92. It is joint Hindu Family property. Certain other grounds of eviction had been taken which do not survive for consideration in the present revision petition. Therefore, they are not being mentioned. It was pointed out that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The building is more than 60 years old. The respondents want to reconstruct the same after demolishing the said building. The petitioners have failed to vacate the property despite many requests.

3. The petitioners contested the claim of the respondents. Certain other defences had been offered which are not being pressed or relevant. It was, however, denied that the suit property forms part of the integrated larger building bearing No. 92. It was stated that the building was constructed only 30-35 year ago. It was even denied that the said property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation or that it requires reconstruction after demolition.

4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and held that the property in question formed part of integrated larger building. It has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and accordingly on the said ground an order of eviction was passed.

5. An appeal, as pointed but above, has been preferred against the said order of eviction. In appeal, the said order was upheld. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Earlier, a controversy has been raised as to whether the respondent-landlords are duty bound to return the portion after reconstruction to the tenants or-not. The answer had been provided by the decision of the Division Bench in the present revision petition and was in the negative. Therefore, the said controversy cannot be reagitated.

7. The first and the foremost question agitated was as to whether the property in question forms part of the integrated larger building or not. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that it is an independent unit and not a part of the integrated larger building and that it had a separate municipal number. Not only both the learned Controller and the learned Appellate Authority found it as a fact but the site plan of the suit premises also shows that it is a part of an integrated larger building. If for the sake of convenience, municipal number of the building has been given as 92-A and that of the main building as 92, it does not imply that they are two separate buildings. In fact, as already mentioned above, the said building is a part of the main structure and there is no ground to upset the findings of the learned Appellate Authority in this regard.

8. The only other question that requires consideration was as to whether the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation or not. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the expert of the respondents did not visit the suit premises from inside and it cannot, therefore; be termed that the suit property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

9. At the outset, it deserves a mention that merely because the building is old is no ground to conclude that it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The age of the building may be relevant factor but not a proof about the building being unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

10. Jagjit Singh, AW5 was examined as a witness who stated that the suit building