In the present case, landlord had earlier sought ejectment of the tenant from the premises in question on the ground of arrears of rent and that the demised shop was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The said petition was dismissed in default and, thereafter, the landlord filed the present petition seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and that the shop in question had been rendered unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The learned Rent Controller while deciding issue no. 4 rightly held that so far as the ground of arrears of rent is concerned, the same was again available to the landlord as the tenant had been in arrears of rent after the dismissal of the earlier ejectment petition. Since the earlier petition was dismissed in default, the second petition seeking ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the premises in question was unfit and unsafe for human habitation, could not be said to be not maintainable as with the passage of time, the building would further become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Moreover, the landlord had also sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that he had failed to pay the arrears of rent after the dismissal of the earlier petition in default.
