Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a revision petition against the judgment dated 20.4.1981 passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal was accepted and the ejectment petition filed by the landlords for the ejectment of the tenant was dismissed. 2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition, are that the present petitioners had filed an ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restrict Act, 1949, against the present respondent (tenant) from a shop, inter alia on the grounds that the property in question was in a dilapidated condition and was unfit for human habitation. It was alleged that upper two stories of the bulging had completely fallen down and the front portion of the wall was building out and that the Improvement Trust had already served notice upon them, declaring the building to be dangerous. The tenant-respondent in the written statement had alleged that the building in question was not in dilapidated condition and was not unfit for human habitation. It was alleged that building was a three storeyed building whereas the shop in question was on the ground floor. It was denied that the upper two stories of the building had completely fallen down or that the front portion of the wall was bulging out. After hearing both sides, learned Rent Controller found that the building in question was not fit for human habitation and accordingly ordered the ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises. In the appeal filed by the tenant, learned appellate authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment petition. It was found that even if the building comprising of the first and second floor was in bad condition, still there was no evidence on record to show that the demised premises situated on the ground floor was in any manner affected by the bad condition of two upper portions. Aggrieved against the decision of the appellate authority, landlords filed the present revision petition in this court. 3. During the pendency of the revision petition, on the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC filed by the petitioners, this court vide order dated 29.10.2001 had appointed Shri Akshay Bhan as Local Commissioner to ascertain the status of the demised premises. Aggrieved against the decision of the appellate authority, landlords filed the present revision petition in this court. 3. During the pendency of the revision petition, on the application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC filed by the petitioners, this court vide order dated 29.10.2001 had appointed Shri Akshay Bhan as Local Commissioner to ascertain the status of the demised premises. It was further directed that the photographs appended on the file shall also be taken into consideration for ascertaining as to whether the same belong to demised premises or not. In pursuance thereof, Local Commissioner visited the spot and submitted his detailed report dated 3.12.2001. Vide order dated 11.4.2002, said report of the Local Commissioner was taken on record and the case was fixed for arguments. Admittedly, no objections have been filed by either side on the report of the Local Commissioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the main case and have gone through the record carefully. 5. Local Commissioner, in his report dated 3.12.2001 had submitted that he had visited the spot on 25.11.2001, after informating the counsel for the parties and that both the sides were met by him at the spot. It was found that the first and second floors above as well as adjacent cabin had already fallen totally and only the roof of the cabin remained and there were visible cracks on the edges of the roof. It was also found that the back wall of the cabin, as seen from outside, was also in bad shape and was on the verge of crumbling. The photographs A1 to A7 were found to be pertaining to the place adjacent to cabin which had crumbled to an extent on the ground floor. It was also found that the said premises which was adjacent had a common wall which had also collapsed qua first and second floors and the first and second floors on the top of the cabin had also collapsed. It was found that the photographs pertained to the portion of the demised premises as well as the premises immediately adjacent to it which had a common wall and seemed to be in a crumbled state and the condition of the wall remaining on the first and second floors were in dilapidated condition on the verge of collapse. 6. It was found that the photographs pertained to the portion of the demised premises as well as the premises immediately adjacent to it which had a common wall and seemed to be in a crumbled state and the condition of the wall remaining on the first and second floors were in dilapidated condition on the verge of collapse. 6. In Sardani Sampuran Kaur and another v. Sant Singh and another, 1983 Punjab Law Reporter 448 : 1982(1) RCR(Rent) 413 (P&H), it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that if the substantial part of the integrated larger building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation the tenant can be ejected from the demised premises forming part thereof despite the fact that the particular portion in his occupation may not be so. In the present case, it is not disputed before me that the shop in question is part of the integrated larger three-storeyed building. The first and second floors of the building have already fallen down. Even the common wall of the shop in question has also fallen down as reported by the Local Commissioner. The learned appellate authority had rejected the case of the petitioners holding that even if it be assumed that the portions of the building comprising of first and second floor were in bad condition, there was no evidence on record to show that the demised premises situated on the ground floor had been affected in any manner by the bad condition of the two upper portions. In my opinion, in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Sardarni Sampuran Kaurs case (supra), even if the shop in question had not become unsafe and unfit for human habitation, still the tenant is to be evicted from there if substantial portion of the integrated larger building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Admittedly, the shop in question is a part of the integrated larger building, a substantial portion of which had fallen. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, tenant-respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the ground that the same has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 7. Admittedly, the shop in question is a part of the integrated larger building, a substantial portion of which had fallen. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, tenant-respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the ground that the same has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. 7. For the reasons recorded above, present revision petition is allowed, order dated 20.4.1991 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and respondent-tenant is ordered to be ejected from the shop in question on the ground that the shop has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. Tenant, however, is given two months time to vacate the premises.