JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.:- The petition is at the instance of the landlord assailing the order of dismissal of the petition for eviction sought under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act. The petition was founded essentially on the grounds of non-payment of rent, material impairment in value and utility of the building and the building being unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The property had been let out for a non-residential purpose for use as a godown. The petitioner stated that the respondent had started to store Khad (fertilizers) that resulted in serious damage to the flooring and walls of the building. The fertilizers emitted smoke that had caused immeasurable damage resulting in the building becoming unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The respondent contested the petition and paid the arrears of rent at the first hearing so that the ground of eviction was no longer available. As regards the plea that the tenant had changed the user by storing fertilizers, it was contended that only articles and goods as ‘railway out agencies goods’ (sic) were being stored and neither khad or nor disposal scrap was being stored in the premises. The further contention was that the damages that were found to exist such as sagging of flooring or cracks in the walls were repairable without causing any structural alterations and such disrepairs ought not to be assumed as constituting damage to the integrity of the building or give rise to a scope for a perception that the building was unfit and unsafe. The respondent itself had not done any act to materially impair the construction and such of those damages which were found were due to ordinary wear and tear that were capable of being repaired and which the landlord was bound to repair. 2. Before the Rent Controller, evidence was led by both parties through building expert, the landlord’s expert saying that the building had cracks on the walls and sagging of the floor that made it unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The tenant’s expert gave contra evidence that was to the effect that there was no serious damage to the integrity of the building to make it unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Appellate Authority reversed the decision on a reappraisal of the quality of evidence brought through the building experts. The tenant’s expert gave contra evidence that was to the effect that there was no serious damage to the integrity of the building to make it unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Appellate Authority reversed the decision on a reappraisal of the quality of evidence brought through the building experts. It is the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Authority which is in challenge before this Court. 3. Since the change of user of the property by use of fertilizers was not itself brought out effectively in evidence, I would affirm the finding rendered that there had been no particular change that had caused the material impairment to the building by alleged storing of fertilizers. It must be remembered that the property was let out as godown and the resultant damage to the flooring ought not to be itself a cause for a complaint of material impairment. It is the purpose of letting that would determine whether a material impairment has been caused or not. For instance, if a property is let out for running a retail shop and the tenant uses it as a godown storing heavy goods that causes damage to the flooring, the change of user that causes a material impairment could itself be a justification for eviction. On the other hand, if a property is let for storage of goods as a godown, the fact that the property of such storage results in some damage cannot be a ground for eviction. The law admits a material impairment that is the result of the tenant’s activities alone as constituting a ground for eviction. A natural decay of a building is a distinct ground which has to be established by proof of the building being unfit and unsafe. In this case, I do not find that the tenant has done any act which has caused the floor to sag or the cracks to develop. If the floor had sagged, it must only be seen as resultant to storage of goods which were a permissible user for a tenant and hence cannot afford to the landlord a ground for ejectment. The case would, therefore, be required to be seen only for a ground relating to the property being unfit and unsafe. This ground could be examined irrespective of whether such a condition arose by the tenant’s conduct or not. The case would, therefore, be required to be seen only for a ground relating to the property being unfit and unsafe. This ground could be examined irrespective of whether such a condition arose by the tenant’s conduct or not. In other words, even a natural wear and tear of a building that had rendered it unfit and unsafe would be a ground good enough for securing eviction. 4. This ground of quality of building as unfit and unsafe could in turn be seen only from how the respective reports brought through the experts revealed the status of building. The expert witness brought by the landlord was J.C. Mahajan, who was Chartered Engineer in Valuation. The property rented out consisted of 13 godowns and in the inspection carried out by the engineer, it was seen that floor had (i) broken, damaged and depressed; (ii) ceiling badly disfigured and blackened by smoke; (iii) walls damaged by dampness, cement crumbling in some places; (iv) door lintel broken; (v) walls in some godowns cracked due to unequal settlement. The overall conclusion by him was, “in view of the damages as detailed in this report, I am of the opinion that the condition of the building is in a very bad shape. It is likely to adversely effect the structural stability of the building.” As against this report, the tenant’s witness, who was a retired engineer and a member of the Builder Association, also recorded that there was dampness due to rain water cracks in the walls and damage to the shutters and doors. His opinion was, “in view of the above said report and inspection carried out of these godowns, I am in the firm opinion that these godowns are quite safe and can be used as a godown without any risk of life as there is no sign of any leakage of the roof.” There was cross-examination of the landlord’s expert witness and his evidence itself was most significant. In the crossexamination, he had stated with reference to some defects pointed out in godown No.1 as, “It is true that this can be repaired, but it is a major repair.” With reference to Godown No.2, his opinion was, “broken RB lintel of the door of godown no.2, can be repaired.” Referring to cracks in Godown Nos.4 and 5, the evidence in crossexamination was, “repairable defects in godown no.5 in the walls can be repaired (sic). It does effect the soundness of the structure .” He has also added that, “building can collapse.” Referring to floor in Godown No.6, he had stated that it can be repaired by replacement. His answer to Godown No.7 was the same as of Godown No.6. The cement pointing out in Godown No.8 on the walls, according to him, was repairable. The floor in Godown No.8 could also be replaced. The lintel in Godown No.9 can be repaired, but it (would) require replacement. Suggestion to him was that the lintel could be repaired by probing. It was elicited with reference to Godown No.8 that the defects pointed out had nothing to do with the soundness of the building and his answers were the same as of Godown No.8 and 9 regarding Godown No.10. Referring to the cracks in Godown No.11, he would state that he had not brought out the width of the cracks and referring to Godown Nos.12 and 13, he had stated that the floors could be repaired by replacement. His own evidence was that the building was 25/30 years old and the counsel for the respondent points out that the petitioner’s own evidence was that the building was about 15 years old. In my view, the law provides for a ground for eviction only in respect of building that had become unfit and unsafe by the tenant’s willful act or by a natural course of decay. This provision must be seen alongside Section 12 which compels a landlord to keep the building in a state of repair and enables a tenant to approach the Court to direct the landlord to make necessary repairs. The provision for eviction under Section 13 which refers to unfit and unsafe nature of building must be seen through the prism of Section 12 which states that, “if a landlord who fails to take necessary repairs to a building other than the structural alterations.......”. The provision for eviction under Section 13 which refers to unfit and unsafe nature of building must be seen through the prism of Section 12 which states that, “if a landlord who fails to take necessary repairs to a building other than the structural alterations.......”. The repairs cannot be such as to require structural alterations. A flooring that would require to be replaced or the cracks which would require to be filled are not in any way to be understood as a total structural alteration itself. Again, the replacement of floor which the expert admits is not to be seen as serious as a replacement of a roof. They are, in my view, different and must be read in a proper context. A replacement of a floor that stood damaged, is a building that is let as a godown. A residential house that sinks and which would require extensive structural alterations to bring solidity of the floor is not to be seen as similar to sagging of floor in a godown. Even the understanding of the expression “structural alteration” must be seen in the nature of user and the type of letting. The term “structural alteration” itself must be understood as an elastic expression that would give room to different meanings depending on the nature of building and the nature of repairs. In this case, I have no doubt in my mind that the repair which the building has required is not so serious as to render the building unfit and unsafe. The order of the Appellate Authority allowing the appeal by the tenant and rejecting the landlord’s plea would require to be confirmed. 5. As a matter of record, I must observe that on 22.11.2012, I deflected the grievance expressed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord to the counsel for the tenant that the Transport Corporation was storing things such as fertilizers and they had not been using the property but they had actually closed down the godown. I had, therefore, sought the respondent’s counsel to take instructions on the manner of user and whether the State Corporation would be prepared to vacate the building. The counsel sought for time to take instructions and at the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, she denied the imputation that the building was remaining closed and that the property was being used for storing fertilizers. The counsel sought for time to take instructions and at the time when the matter was taken up for hearing, she denied the imputation that the building was remaining closed and that the property was being used for storing fertilizers. It must therefore be observed that I have not examined the disputed question which was taken subsequent to the filing of the revision before this Court, namely, of alleged closure of the building or change of user that could cause damage to the building. I have proceeded to examine this case and rejected the landlord’s contention only on the grounds which were already taken and on the basis of the materials already brought before the Court. The revision petition is dismissed. -----------------------