JUDGMENT M.M. Aggarwal, J. - The above-said revision petitions had been filed against judgment dated 19.2.1992 of the Appellate Authority, Rohtak whereby appeal filed by the tenant (now petitioner) against the judgment of the Rent Controller, Bahadurgarh, had been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that Sat Narain respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short the Act) for ejectment of petitioner-tenant Mool Chand from a shop detailed in the heading of the petition. Petitioner is stated to be tenant of the shop on payment of Rs. 35/- per month since 1967 and was were that respondent was in arrears of rent and further that the premises had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation since major portion of the roof was in dilapidated condition, which may fall at any time. Rainy water was leaking from the roof. Wooden battens placed over the Karries had been completely damaged. Further ground of ejectment was that the premises was taken for selling bangles, whereas the tenant had started the business of vegetable selling. The tenant had damaged the flooring of the shop and had also caused damage to the door of the shop which had materially impaired the value and utility of the disputed shop. 3. Mool Chand tenant had separately filed a petition under Section 12 of the Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 for permission to effect repairs. 4. Both these petitions - one filed by Sat Narain under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of Mool Chand tenant and another filed by Mool Chand tenant under Section 12 of the Act for repair of the shop were clubbed together. The petition filed by landlord for ejectment was allowed, whereas petition filed by tenant for repair was dismissed. Appeals filed by the present petitioner had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 19.2.1992. 5. The only ground being contested is as to whether the premises have become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 6. The tenancy in this case was admittedly created in the year 1967. The ejectment petition was filed on 8.6.1984. 7. In this case, the premises is a shop which is just independent and not a part of any big building. The roof is open to sky with no construction thereon. 6. The tenancy in this case was admittedly created in the year 1967. The ejectment petition was filed on 8.6.1984. 7. In this case, the premises is a shop which is just independent and not a part of any big building. The roof is open to sky with no construction thereon. P.W.D. was produced who had proved his report Ex. PW2/1. This report shows that the shop had outlived its life. Walls were of 9" bricks and small bricks in mud mortar and had cracks. The lime plaster on walls had been damaged by salts at many places. The roof was consisting of sal battens with a wooden beems underneath and phattis above. The beems had badly cracked and a support was put under it. The top phattis and battens had been badly effected by white ants. 8. In this case, the Court had also appointed Local Commissioner who visited the spot and had given report. Shri Daljit Singh Chhibbar Advocate Local Commissioner had given report Ex. P2 that some phatties had broken from portion A to D in the roof and then at point E, a crack in the Shattir and support F was given to that and there was spot showing that water was leaking. Some bricks were visible since cement had left its place. Another Local Commissioner had also been appointed who had gone earlier but since the premises was found locked, he had given report just after seeing from outside. As per that report Ex. P-4, the door was in bad condition and it could fall any time. He had also found the plaster of one of the walls removed and also found some cracks in the wall. 9. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that petition under Section 12 of the Act was filed since the building required minor repair and these could be effected without ejecting the tenant (now petitioner). 10. On behalf of the respondent landlord, it was argued that there are concurrent findings of the courts below and this Court should not interfere in those concurrent findings unless the findings were perverse. 11. Both the parties have relied on certain judgments but those are decided on their own facts and circumstances. 12. Twenty-three years have passed when ejectment petition was filed. 11. Both the parties have relied on certain judgments but those are decided on their own facts and circumstances. 12. Twenty-three years have passed when ejectment petition was filed. Even after the shop in question has not fallen during all these 23 years but it can easily be presumed that the condition of the shop in question during all these period had worsened. From the reports of the building expert and the Local Commissioners appointed by the Court and from the fact that some support had been given to the Shattir and some phatties and Karries of the roof had already fallen, I do not find it a fit case where repair should be allowed. 13. There is no ground to interfere in the judgments of the courts below. No merit. Dismissed. However, three months time is granted to the petitioner- tenant to vacate the premises subject to the condition that all the arrears of rent stand paid. Petition dismissed.