JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J. (Oral):- Having lost in both the courts below, landlord has filed this revision petition. 2. Tho ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought by the petitioner under Section 14(3)(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 and it is pleaded in para 18(a) of the ejectment petition that the premises in dispute are in very dilapidated condition and have outlived its life and utility. It is also said that the building as a whole including the premises in dispute have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the petitioner bonafide requires it for carrying out necessary repairs, additions, alterations and reconstruction work which cannot be carried out without getting the premises vacated. 3. The tenant is, admittedly, occupying the first floor for residential purposes. It is also not dispute that the petitioner got the premises in the ground according to the petitioner, could not be used without effecting extensive repairs which cannot be carried out unless the building of the first floor is got vacated from the tenant. 4. Under the provisions referred to above, the premises can be got vacated if the same has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. It can be further got vacated if it is established that the landlord bonafide requires it for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building or rented land vacated. There is another ground on which the landlord can get the premises vacated and that is when these arc required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-building or additions or alterations cannot be carried out without getting the building or rented land vacated. 5. The petitioner has also pleaded that the respondent has made unauthorised additions and alterations whereby the value and utility of the premises stand impaired. This ground has been independently provided for in Section 14(2) (iii) of the Act. 6. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned appellate authority, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, have come to record a finding that the landlord has not been able to make out a case that the building cannot be put to repairs without getting the same vacated from the respondent/tenant. 6. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned appellate authority, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, have come to record a finding that the landlord has not been able to make out a case that the building cannot be put to repairs without getting the same vacated from the respondent/tenant. It has been found that the building has not outlived its life and utility or that it is no fit for human habitation. 7. On November 18, 1996, when the case was taken up for hearing, I found that inspite of the fact that the ground floor of the disputed premises was got vacated by the landlord for putting to his personal use and occupation, but the same has not been occupied by him and the reason given was that it was after getting the premises vacated, when it was noticed that the same could not be occupied and needs re-construction. 8. It was also noticed that two experts who have been examined from both the sides have supported their respective clients. So much so the expert examined by the landlord did not care to issue any notice to the tenant when the premises were inspected and the expert examined on behalf of the tenant had not stated anything about the condition of the ground floor. In the situation, I appointed Municipal Engineer of Notified Area committee, Dhalli, to inspect the entire premises and give a definite opinion about its condition. The commission was further directed to inform this Court as to whether the renovation or re-construction on the ground floor cannot be carried out without pulling down the structure of the first floor. The Engineer was further directed to clarify if the structure can be set right by carrying out necessary repairs without the first floor being vacated, which is admittedly in occupation of the respondent as tenant. The tenant has also filed objections to this report and the landlord/petitioner has filed his reply. 9. At the very outset I may state that the commission was appointed for seeking clarification in respect of certain points which arise for determination and the material placed on record was found insufficient. In all fairness, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the tenant, has not laid much stress on the objections filed by him. 9. At the very outset I may state that the commission was appointed for seeking clarification in respect of certain points which arise for determination and the material placed on record was found insufficient. In all fairness, Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the tenant, has not laid much stress on the objections filed by him. Even otherwise, I am not prepared to go into the objections and the reply so as to open another chapter of dispute between the parties. The report of the Municipal Engineer is marked as Ext.C-1 and has been placed at page 40 of the record of this Court. This report has to be examined alongvvith other material placed on record by the parties. 10. Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, learned counsel appearing for the landlord, forcefully contends that the building is of DHAJJI walls. These are kacha walls where mud and plaster is inserted in the wooden frames. It is pointed out that the walls and roofs are in dilapidated condition. Wood work has outlived its utility and certain portions of the walls have been covered by tin pieces. My attention has also been brought to the photographs Exts.P.1 to P.11 in order to project the condition of the building. These photographs arc not denied. Prima facie a look at the photographs makes out that the condition of the building is really in bad shape. The wooden doors are completely broken and stand separated from the walls. The plaster put on the stone walls has left its place and cracks arc visible to the naked eye. The condition of the roof also does not appear to be safe. 11. My attention has next been brought to the fact that undisputedly the building is more than 60 years old and according the material used, the building was meant for use for 60-65 years. 12. Ms. Kuthiala is at pains to contend that though the notice of the proposed visit by the Local Commissioner, PW-4, S.P. Kapoor, was not given to the tenant, yet his statement in Court coupled with his report Ext.PW-4/A does go to throw sufficient light on the condition of the entire building. Reference has also been made to the other witnesses, i.e., PW-3, Junior Engineer from the Notified Area Committee and PW-2, Roshan Lal, as well as PW-5, Vinay Kumar, who had taken the photographs which have been referred to immediately above. 13. Reference has also been made to the other witnesses, i.e., PW-3, Junior Engineer from the Notified Area Committee and PW-2, Roshan Lal, as well as PW-5, Vinay Kumar, who had taken the photographs which have been referred to immediately above. 13. The expert witness PW-4 in his statement has stated that it is a village type construction and the life span of such type of building is 60 years. In his opinion, the building is 100 years old. It has come in his statement that the walls have bulged out and have developed cracks at many places and portions of the walls have fallen down. The wood work is decayed and instead of panels sheets have been put on the doors. The condition of the floor is stated to be sagged and the first floor has no ceiling. He has clearly stated that the repairs cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. He has gone to the extent of deposing that infact the building has gone beyond repairs and the entire structure needs to be pulled down and re-built He has also opined that the building is not habitable. In his report, Ext.PW-4/A, under heading condition of the building ground floor, if has been said that the cracks in the walls have been filled up with cement mortar on outer side. Even this filling has also cracked which shows that cracks arc developing. Masonry is crumbling on the inner side and has fallen under the bearing of battens at two places and battens are held in position by placing stone pieces. Western wall of room No.2 has bulged out and masonry has fallen. This opinion has been given in respect of the ground floor, which at the moment is lying vacant and the landlord got the same vacated for his personal occupation. 14. It may also be noticed here at this stage that the opinion in respect of the wood work, as per report, door panels decayed and fallen and have been replaced by old tin sheets. It was found that the wooden planks in the ceiling of room No. 1 are rotten and earth from upper floor is coming down. In room No.3. wooden battens are sagged due to age, window frame is decayed and partly crumbled and broken. 15. It was found that the wooden planks in the ceiling of room No. 1 are rotten and earth from upper floor is coming down. In room No.3. wooden battens are sagged due to age, window frame is decayed and partly crumbled and broken. 15. In respect of the wood work on the first floor, it has been found by the expert that there is no ceiling in room No. l-A and 1-B. Roof sheets are said to be badly rusted and bear holes in them. Doors are broken and patches of tin sheets have been put to cover the damaged portion. A clear cut opinion has been given that the building is in dangerous condition and not fit for human habitation. It has also been opined that the structure has outlived its life and needs to be pulled down. The expert further concludes by saying back to a habitable condition. 16. My attention has also been brought to the statement made by the expert examined on behalf of the tenant as RW-2. In his statement, he has stated that the premises in question are in habitable condition and repairs can be carried out without the premises in occupation of the tenant being vacated. He has admitted that the ground floor was not inspected by him, as the same is in occupation of the petitioner and was closed at the time of the inspection. On a definite question put to him, he answered that it is correct that the ground floor was not inspected by him at all and as such he could not give any opinion as to what was the condition of the rooms on the ground floor. He denied that the building is a DHAJ.JI structure. On certain questions put regarding the condition of the floors he said that he could not tell as he does not exactly remember it. On a further question put to him, an answer was given that he does not know whether the masonry work-in-side the G.F. is crumbling. It is really strange as to bow without having throughly inspected the ground floor he come to an opinion that the building can be set right by repairing it without getting the first floor vacated. The report submitted by him Ext.RW-2/A is almost on the identical lines and for the reasons given above it is not safe to rely on his opinion. The report submitted by him Ext.RW-2/A is almost on the identical lines and for the reasons given above it is not safe to rely on his opinion. 17, I have also gone through the statement of the respondent examined as RW-1 and at page 48 - 49 of the record during his cross- examination it is said by him that he does not know whether inside walls have bulged out and are broken at several places. Same was the reply in respect of the cracks in the walls in the ground floor. It is admitted by him that in case the ground floor crumbles down the first floor would also fall with it. He admits having made alterations in the portion in his occupation, 18. Ms. Devyani Kuthiala, thus, proceeds to conclude that the landlord has been able to establish that the building as a whole has gone unfit and unsafe for human habitation and as well as outlived its value and utility. According to the learned counsel, a case has been fully made out that the premises arc required for reconstruction which cannot be carried out without getting the same vacated. Learned counsel has halfheartedly argued that the landlord has also made out a case for ejectment of the tenant under Section 14(2) (iii) of the Act. 19. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the tenant, in reply, besides adopting the line of reasonings, as have been given by the learned courts below in the impugned judgments, has taken me through the contents of the ejectment petition wherein, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner has stated that repairs have to be carried out for which purpose the ejectment is being sought. 20. Mr. Verma has also brought to my notice the application made by the petitioner, Ext. PY, to the Notified Area Committee and the order Ext. PX and on the basis of these documents it is sought to be argued that the permission was sought for carrying out repairs only and no case has been made for re-building and reconstruction. 21. It is also contended that the petitioner got vacated the ground floor of the disputed premises for personal occupation and the same has not been occupied and that the landlord desires to get the first floor vacated in order to sell the entire properly for a good price. 21. It is also contended that the petitioner got vacated the ground floor of the disputed premises for personal occupation and the same has not been occupied and that the landlord desires to get the first floor vacated in order to sell the entire properly for a good price. Another argument raised is that the landlord has not placed any evidence on record that he possesses sufficient means to carry out the work of re-building and reconstruction nor any case has been pleaded as to what additions or alterations have to be made in the premises after pulling down the structure. While concluding, Mr. Verma contends that it is not open for this court at the revisional stage to reappraise the evidence when a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below. 22. Both the learned counsel have place reliance on number of judgments and I do not want to burden this judgment by their re- production, as the case law cited at the bar is on well settled principles and each case has to be decided on its own facts. 23. After brief narration of the evidence placed on record, the stage is now set to take into consideration the report of the Engineer, who was appointed as Local Commissioner by this court in order to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. The premises were inspected in the presence of the parties. In the report it is said that the building is about 80 years old and the opinion is based as confirmed by local inquiry. The building is said to be shaby and is in dilapidated condition. The finishing of the walls on the ground floor is said to be partly in mud plaster and partly in lime. Tits flooring on the first floor is of C.C. on wooden planks The ceiling of the ground floor is of wooden planks, whereas the ceiling of the first floor is reported to be of ply-wood The w«fl« on the ground as well as on the first floor have been said to have developed vertical as well as horizontal cracks. The walls are reported to be bulged out at many places from top to bottom of the building. The frames and shutters arc said to be totally decayed. There is mud flooring on the ground floor in broken shape. The walls are reported to be bulged out at many places from top to bottom of the building. The frames and shutters arc said to be totally decayed. There is mud flooring on the ground floor in broken shape. The mud plaster on the ground floor walls is said to have pealed off at several places. They have put C.C. on the first floor, which rests on the wooden planks which is also stated to be broken at many places. The ply ceiling is also said to be broken at many places. In the conclusion given in the report, it has been specifically mentioned that renovation, or reconstruction on the ground i floor cannot be carried out without pulling down the structure of the first floor. The reason for this has been given that the structure is load bearing and cracks have been developed vertically and horizontally from top to bottom and similarly the walls are bulging out at many places. 24. On the second question that was posed to the expert as to whether the structure can be set right by necessary repairs only without getting it vacated from the tenant, it has been reported that the whole of the structure is to be pulled down as the walls are to be reconstructed to make it safe for living. This report made available to this court by the Municipal Engineer, when coupled with the statement and the report of the expert examined from the side of the landlord, clearly makes out a case which the landlord has pleaded in the ejectment petition. It has come in evidence that the petitioner is a commission agent and his son is an employee in the bank and is living in a tenanted premises in Shimla. It has also come in evidence that a huge piece of land was sold by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no means for rebuilding or reconstructing the premises. 28. In so far as the permission which was obtain from the Notified Area Committee for carrying out repairs and the order passed on the application is concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioner is debarred from pulling down the structure, as it has been found that the building cannot be set right even by carrying out extensive repairs. 29. In so far as the permission which was obtain from the Notified Area Committee for carrying out repairs and the order passed on the application is concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioner is debarred from pulling down the structure, as it has been found that the building cannot be set right even by carrying out extensive repairs. 29. Quite convincing case has been made out by the petitioner that although the ground floor was got vacated by him for his own use and occupation a few years ago, but it was after the premises were got vacated and possession was taken over when it was found that the structure cannot be set right by renovation or repairs, rather it has to be pulled down and for that purpose it has been necessitated by circumstances to get the premises in occupation of the respondent/tenant vacated. I also find no weight in the argument raised by Mr. Verma that in the petition, the case made out is in respect of repairs only. The averments made have to be read as a whole and not in isolation. Even assuming that the contents, as projected are loosely worded, yet the petitioner has pleaded all the ingredients and has been able to prove these successfully in evidence. 30. So far as interference in revision by this court is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the scope is not restricted as it is so in respect of civil revisions, as arc provided under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court while exercising revisional powers in cases of disputes between the landlord and tenants in order to arrive at a just conclusion can certainly go into the illegality, impropriety and jurisdictional error of the courts examining the matter. To a certain extent the evidence can also be re-appraised in order to do substantial justice and to find out whether the judgments in question are based on proper appraisal of evidence or not. The learned courts below have certainly gone wrong in not appreciating the controversy from right prospective. 31. In view of what has been said above, the petition filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the respondent/tenant deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgments arc set aside. This revision petition is allowed and the tenant is ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. 32. 31. In view of what has been said above, the petition filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the respondent/tenant deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgments arc set aside. This revision petition is allowed and the tenant is ordered to be evicted from the premises in question. 32. In case- the tenant files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit within one week from today that he will vacate the premises peacefully and shall hand over its vacant possession to the landlord alongwith all arrears of rent due till date with interest at the rate of 12%, he is granted four months time from the date of this order, i.e., March 19, 1997 till July 19, 1997. In sic undertaking is not filed, the respondent is directed to vacate the premises forthwith. No order as to costs.