Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not required where a building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation.

, J.

1. This is landlords petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

2. The landlord-petitioner sought the ejectment of his tenant from the premises in dispute which is a shop situated in Thanesar, inter alia, on the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation The application was contested on behalf of the tenant and is was pleaded that the shop in question, which was rented premises, was in a good condition. The alleged portion which had fallen, did not form part of the tenancy and, therefore, its falling down was of no consequence. A plea was also taken that before the filing of the ejectment application necessary repairs had been made and, therefore, the building was no more unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller found that a part of the roof of the demised premises had fallen and re-erected. There were several cracks in the shop though repaired and that the said repairs were effected in July, 1971, after the institution of the ejectment application. Thus, the tenant could not take advantage of the subsequent events for which he himself was responsible. So, if was held that the shop in dispute was unsafe and unfit for human habitation. In spite of giving this finding the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that no notice under Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act was given by the landlord terminating the tenancy In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the trial Court that notice under Sec.106 of the said Act, terminating the tenancy was required to be given in the case. As to the finding of the trial Court recorded to the effect that the building was unsafe and unfit for human habitation, the Appellate Authority held that the premises, in question, were not unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It also held that the repairs to the premises were effected by the tenant before the filing of the ejectment application. As a result thereof, the order of the Rent Controller, was maintained.

3. Earlier this case was decided on 31st October, 1983, whereby the revision petition was accepted and eviction order was passed.

4. The tenant approached the Supreme Court and the case has been sent back for fresh decision vide order dated 20th April, 1989. According to the Supreme Court the High Court should deal with the materials on record to come to its conclusion about the state of the building. This is how the case has come up before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings of the Rent Controller that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was maintained by the Appellate Authority as well with the following observations : "in the present case there can be no dispute that the premises in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation because a part of the roof and a portion of the side wall had fallen. " In subsequent para the learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that since the tenant had made the repairs prior to the filing of the ejectment application, the building was no more unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The observations made by the Appellate Authority in this behalf reads as under : "hence in view of my above discussion, I hold that the premises in dispute are not unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that the repairs were effected by the tenant before the filing of the ejectment application " Thus, argued the learned counsel, that once it is found that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation then it was immaterial as to when the repairs were made, i. e. , prior to the ejectment application or subsequent thereto. In support of this contention, he has referred to a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported as Balbir Singh V/s. Hari Ram, 1982 (2) R. L. R.463.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the tenant-respondent submitted that even if a