JUDGMENT : A.N. VARMA, J. 1. This is a landlord's petition which is directed against an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge dated 24-8-1978 allowing an appeal filed by the tenant and rejecting the application for release filed by the landlord u/s 21(1)(b) of the Act. 2. These are the facts: The Petitioner filed an application u/s 21(1)(b) of the aforesaid Act on the ground that the accommodation in dispute was a Kachcha construction and was in a delapidated condition required for being demolished and reconstructed. The application was contested by the tenant who is arrayed in the writ petition as a Respondent No. 2. The tenant asserted that the accommodation in dispute was not in a delapidated condition and was not required for demolition and reconstruction. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the landlord. The tenant appealed. The appellate court has allowed the appeal and rejected the application of the landlord on the ground that the building in question is not in a delapidated condition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the findings of the learned District Judge. He urged that the finding of the learned District Judge is vitiated by reason of the fact that he laboured under a misapprehension as regards the true import of the word "delapidated". Another argument raised by counsel was that the learned District Judge has illegally refused to consider the reports of the experts examined on behalf of the Petitioner. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find no merits in this petition. 5. As regards the first point namely the notions of the learned District Judge as to what amounts to the building being in a delapidated condition, it has to be noted that the term "delapidated condition," has not been defined in the Act and that it has to be given its ordinary meaning. The learned District Judge has no doubt, at one place, observed that in order that the building may be regarded as delapidated it must be held to be in a "dangerous" condition. The learned District Judge has no doubt, at one place, observed that in order that the building may be regarded as delapidated it must be held to be in a "dangerous" condition. However while discussing the state of the building, the learned District Judge, who had the advantage of having seen and inspected the building from inside, has observed that though the building in question is a kuchcha building it seems to be failry strong for the time being and that it can be used as a residential house for years to come. Even the Prescribed Authority, who also had inspected the accommodation in dispute, was of the opinion that so far as the ground floor portion was concerned, it was perfectly fit for being used for residential purposes. The finding of the learned District Judge is based upon his own inspection and being supported by the finding of the Prescribed Authority also, calls for no interference by this Hon'ble Court, not being vitiated by any error of law. The learned District Judge has observed that the intrinsic strength of the building was very much there. Counsel laid considerable stress on the fact that the building is admittedly a kuchcha building being more than 100 years old. From these facts alone, however, it is not possible to hold that the finding of the learned District Judge that the building is not in a delapidated condition is erroneous. 6. Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Smt. Chandrawati Vs. District Judge and Others, (1979) AWC 632 in which S.D. Agarwala, J. has examined the problem in some depth. He has held that delapidated condition in Section 21(1)(b) only means that the building is in a state of decay or partly in ruins. I am in agreement, with respect, with the view of the learned Judge. However, on the finding recorded by the learned District Judge in the present case, it is not possible to hold that the building in dispute is in a state of decay or partially in ruins. This case is, therefore, distinguishable. 7. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on some observations made by a learned Judge of this Court in the case of R.O. Gupta reported in 1976 All India Rent Control Journal page 502. This case is, therefore, distinguishable. 7. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on some observations made by a learned Judge of this Court in the case of R.O. Gupta reported in 1976 All India Rent Control Journal page 502. The learned Judge has held that the word 'delapidated' has to be given ordinary dictionary meaning, according to which it means that the building is in ruins or state of decay or disrepair. Even according to the standards laid down in this case, on the finding given by the learned District Judge, it cannot be said that the building in question is in delapidated condition. From the mere fact that the building has not been repaired for considerable length of time, it does not follow that the building is in a state of disrepair so as to be treated as being in a delapidated condition. I, therefore, find no substance in the first point. 8. Coming to the second point, the learned Counsel was entirely unable to point out how those certificates were proved. The view of the learned District Judge, therefore, that these certificates had not been duly proved cannot be found fault with, particularly when the case of the tenant is that those exparts never in fact examined the building in question. 9. Learned Counsel lastly urged that the learned District Judge has not taken into account, the photographs which the Petitioner had filed in support of his case as regards the state of the building. From the mere absence of any reference to these photographs in the judgment of the learned District Judge, it is not possible to say that the learned District Judge has omitted to consider the same. The learned District Judge appears to have attached greater importance to the first hand knowledge and impressions which he gathered from the inspection of the building than the photographs. I, therefore, find no merits in this point either. 10. In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.