JUDGMENT C.S.P. Singh and R. M. Sahai, JJ. - This is an appeal by the petitioner landlord. Applications Here filed under section 7-F of the old Rent Control Act 1947 alleging that the appellant had failed to keep the building under tenancy wind proof and water proof and, therefore, a direction many be issued calling upon the petitioner-appellant to make the necessary repairs. These applications were opposed by the respondents on the ground that the premises were in a dilapidated condition and it was not feasible to make them habitable only by making repairs. Before these applications could be decided the old Rent Act was repealed and the provisions of the new Act came into force. The applications made by the tenant were treated to be one under section 28 of the new Act. The tenants produced evidence to show that the building could be repaired and made fit for habitation. On the contrary, the landlord filed a report of an overseer as also certain other evidence to show that the building was in a dilapidated condition and could not be made fit for habitation only by making repairs. Parties also requested the Prescribed Authority to make a local inspection. The Prescribed Authority visited the spot and made a note to the effect that the building could be made fit for habitation by carrying out repairs. It also found that the premises had been brought to the condition in which they were on account of the neglect on the part of the landlord in carrying out annual repairs. It appears that no objections were filed by parties to this report. The prescribed Authority relying on the inspection has directed the landlord to carry out repairs. The present petition has been filed against this order. 2. The question as to whether the premises could be repaired or not is essentially a question of fact. The prescribed Authority made a local inspection on the request of parties. The appellant did not file any objection to this report. We have been taken through the report which clearly establish what the premises in question could be made habitable by carrying out repairs and that they were not in such a condition that they could be made fit for human habitation only by reconstruction. The appellant did not file any objection to this report. We have been taken through the report which clearly establish what the premises in question could be made habitable by carrying out repairs and that they were not in such a condition that they could be made fit for human habitation only by reconstruction. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not possible to interfere with the finding of fact which essentially is the position in the present case unless it is shown that the finding is based on no evidence or on no relevant material or has been arrived at by taking into account inadmissible evidence or ignoring admissible evidence. In the present case, the inspection made by the prescribed Authority which was done at the instance of the parties could be relied upon, and as the finding of the prescribed Authority is based on this report, we do not see any infirmity in its order. The petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. The Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.