The expression "has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation" in Section 13(3)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 refers to a condition caused by natural wear and tear or acts of God, not by the landlord's actions.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. By this common judgment both revision petitions bearing No. 713 and 755 of 1990 can conveniently be disposed of together.

2. Both the revision petitions have been filed by Ramji Dass Nirmohi landlord of the property in question assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, dated 6.2.1990.

3. The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction seeking ejectment of the respondent from the property in question. The grounds of eviction taken were (i) non-payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month; (b) the respondent being nuisance to the occupier of the neighbouring building; (iii) the respondent has impaired the value and utility of the property; and (iv) that the disputed property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The petition for eviction was contested by the respondent-tenant. He has tendered the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month with costs and denied that he was a nuisance to the occupier of the neighbouring building or that he has impaired the value and utility of the property. It was denied that the disputed shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

4. Learned Rent Controller accepted the plea of the respondent that the rent is Rs. 20/- per month. The contention of the petitioner that respondent was a nuisance or that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the property were negatived or in other words the findings were against the petitioner. Regarding the same no dispute was raised in this Court. Learned Rent Controller, however, held that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and on this ground the order of eviction was passed. Appeal has been filed with the learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar. Learned Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller and held that it is not established that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was dismissed. Hence, the present petition No. 775 of 1990.

5. After the petitioner had filed an application for eviction, the respondent also submitted an application under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the act) with the Rent Controller seeking permission to effect necessary repair of the roof of the shop on the plea that the petitioner has failed to do so and has threatened to dispossess him by demolishing the wall. The contention of the petitioner was that the roof is not repairable. It has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On the contrary, he raised objection that the application was not maintainable.

6. Learned Rent Controller held that the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The application was filed after eviction petition was submitted by the petitioner-landlord. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. The respondent had preferred the appeal. The same was accepted. The finding that the property has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was rejected and the application of the respondent was allowed. Repairs were allowed to be effected but not exceeding Rs. 1.50/- which could be deducted from the rent.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, an application was filed for early hearing of the petition. The same was listed. But on the date so listed, non-appeared on behalf of the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the findings of the learned Appellate Authority alleging that the property in question has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation because it is an old building.

9. The fact as to if the property has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation necessarily is to be established on the basis of evidence. Merely because the building is old is by itself not a fact to prompt the court to come to the conclusion that the building has become unfit and unsafe for, human habitation. On this score, the plea