Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The landlords are in revision.

2. The landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 [for short “the Act”] in respect of the demised premises (shop), inter alia, on the grounds of non-payment of arrears of rent and the building having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The precise averment made in the eviction petition is as under:

“2(b) That the shop fully described in the head note of the application is in a dilapidated and dangerous condition and is falling down and has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The age of the disputed shop is about 100 years old and the disputed shop is crumbling down. The buildings on the Northern and southern sides of the disputed shop are also in a fallen condition and are unsafe and unfit for human habitation.”

3. In reply to the aforesaid paragraphs, it was averred that the demised premises is in a good condition. The landlords wanted to demolish it for letting it out on a higher rate of rent after reconstruction. All other averments made here-in-above in the eviction petition were denied.

4. The landlords filed replication in which the averments of para no.2(b) of the written statement was denied and that of the eviction petition were reiterated. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed as many as 3 issues. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. Ram Paul, Photographer was examined as AW2, who had proved the photographs of the demised premises, and Narinder Singh Bhatia, Building Expert was examined as AW3 who had proved his report as Ex.AW3/A and site plan as Ex.AW3/B. The tenant examined B.S.Sidhu, Retired S.D.O. (B&R) as RW1, who had proved his report as Ex.R1 and site plan as Ex.R2. Issue No.1 became redundant after the rent was tendered but issue No.2 was discussed in detail and the learned Rent Controller decided it against the landlords while dismissing the eviction petition on 31.05.1988.

5. In appeal, the landlords moved an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner as it was pleaded that on the intervening night of 25.09.1988/26.09.1988, a considerable portion of the roof and part of the northern wall of the demised premises had fallen down. The application was contested by the tenant by way of a reply in which it was averred that “a portion of the wall of the Kotwali fell upon the roof of the shop in dispute and on account of that a portion of the roof as well as portion of the northern wall of the shop in dispute has also fallen”. Although an additional issue No.2-A was framed by the Appellate Authority but no finding was recorded on it because counsel for the landlords made a statement that the said issue, in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, had become redundant. The learned Appellate Authority though observed that “there is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that when a building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the eviction petition has been filed on the said ground, the re-construction of the building by the tenant would not defeat the rights of the land-lord, if it is pleaded and proved on the record”, yet the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the landlords have failed to specifically plead the details of damages and the particulars of the condition as to how the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and even if there are subsequent events which have further caused deterioration of the building, these have to be incorporated in the pleadings and since it has not been done so by the landlords, therefore, the evidence available on record was not considered and the appeal was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Courts below have committed a patent error of law in dismissing the eviction petition solely on the ground that each and every detail about the damage to the building rendering it to be unfit