Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. Being aggrieved against the order directing his ejectment by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Court, the tenant has filed the present revision petition. 2. Petitioner, Sat Parkash, is a tenant in the shop owned by Om Parkash Goyal. The landlord filed a petition seeking his ejectment from the shop situated within the municipal limits of Sangrur, with the allegation that the shop along with Chobara built thereon had fallen to his share in the family partition and, thus, he became exclusive owner of the demised premises, which had been let out to the petitioner tenant. The monthly rent is stated to be Rs. 34.40 paise and the ejectment of the tenant was sought on the ground of arrears of rent from 1.4.1983 to 31.12.1983. In addition, it is also pleaded that the shop has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. As per the landlord the shop is an integral part of a bigger building consisting of two chobaras and one Parchhati built thereon. There is also a projection in front of his chobara and a staircase which was built on the Southern side of the shop in dispute for having ingress to the upstairs portion. It is pleaded by the landlord that 2/3rd portion of the roof of the back side of the chobara had fallen down and the remaining roof also was likely to fall. Its wall had also fallen down and remaining portion of chobara was also stated to be in dilapidated condition. So was the condition of the walls of the compound and Parchhati on the first floor. The pleadings also show that big cracks have developed and even the batons used in roof was eaten by the white ants. In regard to the shop, it is pleaded that the Western side of the same is in a bad condition and large number of bricks had fallen from the lower portion of the wall. The wall was stated to have bulged towards outer side and there were cracks in the wall of the shop and roof had become unsafe. 3. The tenant appeared and tendered the rent on the first date of hearing. The petition was not contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The wall was stated to have bulged towards outer side and there were cracks in the wall of the shop and roof had become unsafe. 3. The tenant appeared and tendered the rent on the first date of hearing. The petition was not contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the written statement the tenant-petitioner took a stand that the shop was taken on rent from one Babu Ram and the same had not fallen to the share of Om Parkash Goyal in the family partition and the same, if had fallen into his (Om Parkash Goyal ) share in family partition then he would not have any objection to accept him as his landlord. He, however, denied the allegation of shop being unsafe or unfit for human habitation. As per him it was an integral part of the chobara built thereon. The tenant further alleged that the back side of the chobara was demolished by the landlord himself in order to harass him. Besides, he also pleaded that on previous occasion also the petition was filed against the petitioner for his eviction from the shop on the same ground that it become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 31.10.1994. It was accordingly pleaded that the present petition would be barred by Section 14 of the Act. The petitioner had also pleaded that when the roof of the chobara was demolished, a large quantity of debris had fallen on the roof and he had accordingly filed a suit for removal of the same. The heap of debris, though, was removed but the suit was dismissed regarding the other reliefs in view of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Rent Act, under which alone the tenant could force the landlord to effect certain repairs. The petitioner had also denied that the walls of the open yard and Parchhati on the first floor had developed cracks or that the batons of the roof of front side Chobara have been eaten by white ants or were hanging down. The petitioner had further denied the allegation that if portion of the Western Wall of the shop had cracks. It is pleaded that the respondent-landlord along with respondent Nos. The petitioner had further denied the allegation that if portion of the Western Wall of the shop had cracks. It is pleaded that the respondent-landlord along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed another petition against him on 22.2.1981 which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 29.7.1981 without getting permission to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. So according to the petitioner-tenant, the present petition was barred. 4. Having regard to the plea raised by the respective parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the petitioner is a landlord qua the respondent ? OPA. 2. Whether the premises are unfit and unsafe for human habitation ? OPA. 3. Whether the application is barred by the principles of res judicata ? OPR. 4. Relief. 5. The petitioner gave up issue No. 1 in regard to the respondent being his landlord and accordingly the same was decided in favour of the landlord. The Rent Controller also decided the remaining issues in favour of the landlord and directed his ejectment of the tenant-petitioner. The appellate Court has also decided against him and that is how he has filed the present revision. 6. In support of their respective submissions, the tenant as well as the landlord examined the experts, who had carried out inspection of the demised premises. The report given by the respective expert witnesses have been discussed by both the Courts to find that the landlord was able to establish his case that the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Shamsher Singh (AW-2) was examined by the landlord. He had inspected the disputed shop and has given his report as Ex.A.23 and site plan as Ex.A.24. He has also placed on record various photographs as Ex.A-1 to A-11. Based on these documents, he opined that the building was unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Besides stating that the demised shop was integral part of the double storey building. It is noticed from the evidence of this witness and the documents and photographs produced by him that the building in question is no longer fit for human habitation and appears to be in dilapidated condition. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the report submitted by S.K. Khurana( RW-3), Sub Divisional Officer (Construction). On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the report submitted by S.K. Khurana( RW-3), Sub Divisional Officer (Construction). He while appearing as a witness has given his report Ex.R.W.3/A and plan as R.W.3/B. This witness had deposed that shop and the chobara were fit for human habitation but could not withstand when subjected to cross-examination. It appears from his cross-examination that he had concealed certain vital aspects. He admitted during the cross-examination that there was a hole in the tin of Varandah. He further conceded that lower portion of the wall towards Northern side was not in a good condition and the plaster had come of the wall. He also admitted that the mud mortar had come out at some places. There were cracks in front wall of front chobara. He had even admitted that one baton of that chobara towards Northern wall had fallen down and sky was visible from that portion of the roof. This witness also conceded before the Court that he did not inspect the batons. He further admitted that 2/3rd portion of the roof had fallen down. The Courts accordingly found from the evidence as tendered by the petitioner himself that the demised shop was in dilapidated condition and it can be so inferred. It was contended by the counsel representing the petitioner that even if the chobara had fallen and the roof of building on the first floor was in dilapidated condition then also it can not be said that the shop was so which may call for his ejectment therefrom. Similar plea is raised by the learned counsel before me. 7. The evidence lead by the experts examined by the landlord would reveal that the chobara and the shop are integral part of the entire building and they are not separate in that sense. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner has also placed reliance on the case of Piare Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, 1988(2) RCR(Rent) 32 : AIR 1988 SC 1432, to say even if roof of one room in leased portion had fallen down and in the absence of finding that rest of building was also damaged or had become weak, the order of eviction would be improper. In my view the facts in the case of Piare Lal (Supra) would not fully apply to the present case. In my view the facts in the case of Piare Lal (Supra) would not fully apply to the present case. This was a case where four rooms on the ground floor were on lease. In this background falling of roof of one room was considered not sufficient to direct ejectment. The present case pertains to shop over which there is a chobara which is seen to be in dilapidated condition. Another reason which may go against the present petitioner is that he was given opportunity to move applicable under Section 12 of the Rent Restriction Act to seek direction to carry out the repairs. There is nothing to indicate if any such application was moved by him. Accordingly the position as existing at the date of examining of witnesses would remain. Nothing otherwise substantial has been pointed out before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the finding of facts recorded against the petitioner. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact concurrently recorded by the Rent Controller and the appellate Court. The present revision petition is dismissed accordingly.