JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - The petitioner landlord sought eviction of tenant Ram Dass on the ground that the building was in a dilapidated condition and was required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. In support of the application evidence was led with regard to the condition of the building. The tenant pleaded that it was not at all necessary to get the building demolished and reconstructed. He alleged that the landlord was keen to evict him with a view to realise higher rent. Earlier in 1960 he made such an attempt but failed. According to the tenant the premises needed some repairs only but as the landlord was keen to get the tenant evicted he neglected the repairs. The tenant also produced evidence in support of his allegations. 2. The Prescribed Authority inspected the premises in dispute and found the roof of the shop in a dilapidated condition and to that extent the allegation of the landlord was found correct. He noticed that the shop was being used for grain business. In the opinion of the Prescribed Authority the shop could be made usable if the roof was repaired. The Prescribed Authority also came to the conclusion that the repairs of the shop were neglected by the landlord as he keen only to get the tenant some how evicted and to increase his source of income. In that view of the matter the application of the landlord was rejected. 3. The District Judge affirmed the decision of the Prescribed Authority. It may be that the District Judge wrongly took the view that as the shop was not in ruins, no case of the eviction of the tenant was made out under section 21(1)(b) of Act XIII of 1972. One of the meanings of the word "dilapidated" is "in ruins" but that is not the only meaning. The building may be in dilapidated condition it may not always be correct to say that it is "in ruins". According to the inspection note and the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority the roof of the shop was totally damaged. The photographs filed by the parties indicate that the roof of the shop is of Kachcha tiles. Such a roof can be easily replaced without much expense. There is no finding that the entire building needs to be demolished for reconstruction. The photographs filed by the parties indicate that the roof of the shop is of Kachcha tiles. Such a roof can be easily replaced without much expense. There is no finding that the entire building needs to be demolished for reconstruction. The inspection note of the Prescribed Authority does not indicate that the walls were also damaged as alleged by the landlord. Keeping in view that earlier attempts had been made by the landlord to evict the tenant, it was open to the Prescribed Authority to infer that the real purpose of the landlord was some how to eject the tenant. The learned District Judge does not appear to have committed any error in affirming the decision of the Prescribed Authority. 4. The petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.