JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.—The present respondents-landlord preferred a petition under section 14 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be called as "the Act") for the eviction of the present tenant-petitioner from the premises under reference which consisted of the first floor of House No. 349 (Chaubara) and shop and the first floor of House No, 348 (Chaubara). The eviction has been sought on the following grounds: (1) Non-payment of rent from 1-4-1983 onwards; (2) The landlords required the premises for bona fide personal use as the present accommodation with the father of the landlords was not sufficient to meet the requirement of all the family members of the landlords ; (3) The premises having out-lived its life, were in a dilapidated condition and the same were unfit for human habitation and those were required for reconstruction which was not possible without eviction ; (4) The tenant had purchased house No 341 in the urban area of Subathu where the premises under reference were situated and was in occupation thereof and that the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son Shri Ram Niwas without the consent of the landlords. 2. The tenant contested the petition by denying all the grounds for eviction. The Rent Controller framed the following Issues on the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent? OPP 2. Whether the premises are required bona fide by the petitioners ? OPP 3. Whether building is in a dilapidated condition and is unfit for human habitation, as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether respondent has acquired another building in the urban area ? If so, its effect ? OPP 5. Relief. 3. The Rent Controller held that the tenant was in arrears of rent since 1st April, 1983. The other Issues were decided against the landlords and the petition was allowed only on the ground of non-payment of rent. 4. The aforesaid order of eviction was assailed before the appellate authority by the landlords on various grounds. OPP 5. Relief. 3. The Rent Controller held that the tenant was in arrears of rent since 1st April, 1983. The other Issues were decided against the landlords and the petition was allowed only on the ground of non-payment of rent. 4. The aforesaid order of eviction was assailed before the appellate authority by the landlords on various grounds. The Appellate Authority, after hearing the parties, accepted the appeal and came to the conclusion that the landlords were entitled to get Chaubaras vacated on the ground of their bona fide requirement though such ground was not available for the eviction of the tenant from the shop It was also held that the landlords were entitled to eject the tenant for reconstructing their building and the findings on Issue No. 3 were reversed and made in favour of the land lords. 5. The aforesaid eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority has been assailed in the present revision petition on various pleas. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also minutely examined the records. 7. In so far as the ground of arrears of rent is concerned/the tenant- petitioner in this behalf only submitted that the tenant, as per orders of the Rent Controller, had deposited the arrears. However, it was contend ed that due to some ailment of the tenant the arrears of rent could not be deposited within thirty days and for that purpose the tenant moved a separate application C. M. P. No. 51 of 1994 whereby it was prayed to bring on record some medical certificate as the tenant was admitted for his treatment as he was suffering from tuberculosis. This certificate, even if allowed to be brought on record, will not improve the matter in so far as the present revision petition is concerned. In so far as the arrears of rent is concerned, there is no dispute to that effect raised on behalf of the tenant in the present proceedings. The only point, being raised, was that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the arrears of rent could not be deposited within the stipulated time I think this is not the scope of the present revision petition to find out whether the arrears of rent were deposited within the time or not. The only point, being raised, was that due to certain unavoidable circumstances the arrears of rent could not be deposited within the stipulated time I think this is not the scope of the present revision petition to find out whether the arrears of rent were deposited within the time or not. The only scope of these proceedings is whether the tenant was in arrears of rent which fact is not being disputed. However, the tenant, if it is permissible to him under law, can raise such an objection in the execution proceedings if at all available to him However, it may be mentioned here that the period of thirty days provided under the Act for the deposit of arrears of rent cannot be extended This point came up for consideration before this Court in Krishan Murari v. Amur Datt Sharma% Civil Revision No. 220/94, decided on 21-11-1994, wherein it has been held that the date when the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller on the basis of arrears of rent would be the date taken note for depositing the amount due by the tenant within thirty days and not from the date of the order passed by the Appellate Authority or by the High Court where the eviction order had been maintained, as passed by the Controller. 8. Thus, on the basis of the findings of the two courts below that the tenant has been in arrears of rent since 1-4 1983, the order of eviction on this ground cannot be interfered with. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a part of the premises were residential and a part thereof was non-residential. Accordingly, the entire premises has to be considered as a non-residential and with that context the landlords were not entitled to any order of eviction for their personal bona fide requirement which ground is available only for residential buildings. It is not so simple a matter as has been contended before this Court. 10. There is no doubt that the entire premises under reference forms part of the same building but, as per case of the landlords and as well as that of the tenant, there were two separate units, having been rented out in favour of the tenant. One unit, being the shop while the other unit, being the Chaubaras, which were the residential premises. One unit, being the shop while the other unit, being the Chaubaras, which were the residential premises. It would be apparent from para 4 of the petition wherein it has been very specifically mentioned that two Chaubaras are residential and the shop is non-residential. Again, in para 11 of the petition it has been very specifically mentioned that Rs. 15 was the rent per month for the shop and Rs. 15 per month for the remaining premises, that is, Chaubaras, which were being used as residential premises. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the tenant in his reply though some additions were alleged to have been made by the tenant in his reply in this regard which have not been accepted by the two forums below. Thus, as two separate tenancies were there pertaining to non-residential, that is soop, and the other for residential purpose, that is, Chaubaras, the Appellate Authority has rightly held that in so far as the bona fide requirement of the landlords was concerned, that ground v as available only for the residential premises which happened to be the Chaubaras for which the tenant was paying Rs. 15 per month as rent. 11. In order to prove the bona fide requirement the landlords examined evidence. PW 1, Rajinder Prasad landlord, deposed on oath that in the family of his father, apart from his father and mother there were his brothers Kailash and Manohar Lal and that Manohar Lal has his wife and six children. He has stated that Kailash has his wife and one child whereas PW 1 has his wife and four children and petitioner Babu Ram for whose use and occupation the premises were required was having his wife and three children. The witness also stated that they were living together. The respondent-tenant, while appearing as RW 1 admitted that Mool Chand, the father of the landlords, was having 9-10 members in the family and said Shri Mool Chand had no other building in Subathu. Thus the family of the landlords and their father Mool Chand was a big one, which fact in a way has not been disputed. The respondent-tenant, while appearing as RW 1 admitted that Mool Chand, the father of the landlords, was having 9-10 members in the family and said Shri Mool Chand had no other building in Subathu. Thus the family of the landlords and their father Mool Chand was a big one, which fact in a way has not been disputed. The tenant submitted that the wife of Babu Lal was not interested to stay in Subathu but he also admitted that whenever Babu Lal and his wife happened to come to Subathu, they have to put up in a temple This aspect of the matter supports the plea of the landlords. 12. PW 1 further stated that they were residing with their father and for the last ten years they have not taken any house nor they have vacated any premises during this period. According to him, he and his brother Babu Lal were the owners of the building under reference. 13 Thus, on the basis of the evidence examined by the landlords, it clearly established that the premises were required bona fide for Babu Lal landlord who happened to be in Military. In this behalf the Appellate Authoritys findings do not require any interference especially when the evidence pertaining to this aspect of the matter has been rightly and legally appreciated. 14. The third ground for eviction, which has been stressed before this Court, pertained to the dilapidated condition of the premises under reference and in order to support this ground it was pleased that the premises have out-lived its life and were in a dilapidated condition and were unfit for human habitation It was also pleaded that the premises were required for reconstruction which was not possible without its vacation. 15. Under section 14 (3) (c) eviction of a building in occupation of the tenant can be allowed in case the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or was required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which could not be carried out without the building being vacated. 15. Under section 14 (3) (c) eviction of a building in occupation of the tenant can be allowed in case the building has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or was required bona fide by the landlord for carrying out repairs which could not be carried out without the building being vacated. In so far as this aspect of-the case is concerned, the sole argument advanced on behalf of the tenant petitioner has been that whatever evidence was examined by the landlords the tenant had not been afforded sufficient time to rebut the same and in this behalf the tenant preferred an application before the Rent Controller for adducing additional evidence which was wrongly disallowed. It has been contended that the tenant be afforded opportunity to lead additional evidence in order to rebut the expert opinion tendered in evidence by the landlords to prove their case. 16. The tenant closed his evidence on 11-9-1987 and a statement to that effect was made by the learned Counsel for the tenant. The application to lead additional evidence in order to rebut the expert evidence was made on 10-5-1988, after about a year of closing the evidence. This undue delay together with the fact that steps at the appropriate time to examine the evidence were not taken by the tenant, were the basis considered by the two forums below to disallow the prayer. I think both the forums below did not commit any illegality in this behalf and the application for additional evidence was rightly rejected. 17. The landlords have examined PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 in support of their case who deposed that the building was in dilapidated condition. The landlord as PW 1 stated that the building was very old and was in a very bad condition and it was not fit for human habitation. PW 2 Shri H N Gandhi, retired Superintending Engineer HP PWD who carried out the inspection of the premises in dispute and has given a detailed report which is Ex PW 2/A on record The expert has very clearly mentioned that the walls of the premises in dispute were made of mud which have bulged out and craks have appeared on all the faces of the walls and the mud plaster has peeled off. He also opined that the outer wall was ma dilapidated condition as also the side walls According to him the cemented floors have cracked all over all the cracks in the wall were from top to bottom The planks on the floors were in a rotten condition due to dampness from water seeping throuth cracked floors According to him, the back walls of the small rooms were of wooden planks which have wraped and were bulging dug to constant exposure to sun and ram. The expert has been very specific in opining that the building has outlived its life. In the opinion of the expert the building could come down any moment. 18. PW 1, the landlord deposed that he has got some funds with him for construction and the remaining he would arrange as and when the premises is vacated for reconstruction. 19. PW 3 has also supported the landlords by deposing that the building was in a dilapidated condition. 20 The evidence examined on behalf of the landlords has been assailed in this court on the sole ground that the evidence even if believed does not satisfy the requirement of law. I think such an inference as is being submitted on behalf of the tenant, cannot be drawn from the evidence examined by the landlords. The expert in this behalf has been very Specific in deposing that the building was in such a dilapidated condition that it could come down at any moment. It has come in the evidence of the landlords that they want to reconstruct it and for that purpose one of the landlords was serving in Army and was possessed of sufficient funds Simply because the application for additional evidence put in by the tenant Selected it cannot be argued that the tenant has been prejudiced by such a rejection- especially when the tenant himself is responsible for not bringing before the Rent Controller legal evidence to rebut the case of the landlords when sufficient opportunity had been afforded to him. In this view of the matter also the findings of the Appellate Authority do not require any interference. No other point has been stressed. 21. In view of the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merits in the present revision petition and, accordingly, dismiss the same with costs. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is, however, maintained. Revision petition dismissed.