Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. 1. Mr. R.K. Raina, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the counsel on record, seeks for adjournment. The case is of the year 1991 and I decline the request. 2. The revision is filed at the instance of the tenant, who faces an order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have considered the evidence of the landlord, who apart from examining himself has secured the attendance of an expert who has inspected the property and given a report AW3/A. He had noted that the shop was a part of a larger building where roof of the first floor had already been fallen down. It was also recorded in the impugned decisions that the tenant himself had admitted in his evidence that the roof of the first floor of a kitchen had fallen down and water was seeping through the roof to the ground floor, which was in the possession of the tenant. The Appellate Authority had also taken note of the fact that even on earlier occasion, the tenant had obtained permission from the Court to effect repairs and the roof of the shop was also replaced under the orders of the Rent Controller. I have further considered the fact that for examining the safety and fitness of the building for human habitation, the condition of the super-structure above could not be completly ignored where a substantial portion of the entire building of which the shop was a part had become unfit and unsafe. The decisions rendered by the authorities concurrently on a factual consideration of the condition of the building is not an aspect that could suffer any variation of approach in revision. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.3500/-.