The eviction Petition was dismissed.
Thus this appeal by special leave under Art.136 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its judgment dated Sept. 19, 1980 in Civil Revision No.958 of 1975 allowed the revision and restored the order of the Rent Controller.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.1980 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
On appeal, the District Court Appellate Authority by judgment dated May 7, 1975 reversed it and held that as the appellant had already carried out repairs the shop became safe and habitable and so the need for ejectment numberlonger subsists.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the Petition, the respondent pleaded that the demised premises is a shop and most of the roof had already fallen and the remaining part may fall at any time the flooring has given way and the walls were crumbling.
The repairs effected by the appellant were number extensive.
958 of 1975.
2945 of 1980.
K. Goel for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY, J. The respondent, landlord, laid the application under s.13 3 a iii of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for short the Act for ejectment of the appellant from the demised premises alleging that the building required for reconstruction, since it became unsafe and unfit for human habitation.
M. Ashri for the Respondent.
The rent Controller by his order dated March 5, 1973 directed eviction of the appellant.
