A landlord cannot evict a tenant on the ground of the building becoming unfit and unsafe for human habitation if the defects are rectifiable by repairs or replacement, and if the portions of the premises alleged to be in dilapidated condition do not constitute a major portion of the building.

M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. The demised premises were taken on rent from one Om Parkash and Harnam Singh at yearly rent of Rs.700/. The premises are constituted of 7 Khans. Out of them, tenant is in possession of 3 Khans. He has been running the shop of jute ropes, cots and tobacco etc. for more than two decade The two Khans on the back of the premises in occupation of the tenant were locked by the landlord and were in his possession. The respondents purchased the demised premises on 1 3.1.1978.

2. The successor of the landlord i. e. the respondents after the purchase of the demised premises on 13.1.1978, sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent with effect from 13.1,1978 i. e. from the date they purchased the dismissed premises. The ejectment application was preferred on 11.9.1980. The rate of rent was claimed to be Rs.250/p. m. It was also averred that the tenant had created nuisance by obstructing the use of two khans which were in possession of the landlord. The allegation levelled against the tenant was that he refused to provide access to the first floor from the staircase in his possession. The charge of user of the premises in dispute was also attributed by averring that the shop in dispute was leased out for running a grocery shop but now the tenant is using it for selling bamboo, jute, cots and tobacco etc.

3. The allegations were denied by the tenant and it was claimed that the rent was Rs.700/- per annum.

4. The authorities below came to the conclusion that the rate of rent claimed by the landlord in his application for ejectment an after-thought. They disbelieved the landlords evidence on reccord and came to the conclusion that the rate of rent was Rs.70/- per annum. The landlord was found to be entitled to the house-tax only after the statutory provisions of law for claiming the same were complied with. It was further observed that no nuisance was created by the tenant. Some observations were made to the effect that the rear portion in occupation of the landlord was in dilapidated condition. It was ultimately concluded that the landlord failed to establish the nuisance that had been averred as ground for ejectment of the tenant. The finding with respect to the ground of change of user was also against the land lord, Resultantly, the ejectment petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 20.12.1982.

5. The landlord having failed in, his attempt, after purchasing the demised premises, to eject the tenant, preferred another application for ejectment again on the ground of non-payment of rent at the rate of Rs 250/- per month w e. f 19,9 1980. A further charter of claim for ejectment was put forth viz. the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was averred that the tenant by blocking the stair case had created a condition in which the landlord was unable to look after the two Khans on the back side, which were in his possession. This made the roof of those two Khans to fall it was further averred that the tenant was not allowing the landlord to effect repairs of the two back Khans and with the fall of the roof of two back Khans, the demised premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation Further an averment was made to the effect that the tenant had materially impaired the value of shop as well as its utility. This ejectment application was preferred on 15.3.1982.

6. The tenant petitioner refused the averments made. He claimed Rs.700/- per annum as rent of the demised premises and stated that the back room was locked by the landlord just as previously it was locked by their predacessor in interest He had never obstructed the use of the porition in their possession nor he caused any nuisance. The landlords themselves had never cared to attend to the said premises in their possession and had never used these except that the same is under their lock. The allegation that the premises in occupation of the tenant as well as the back portion wa