Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral);— This is tenant's revision petition challenging the order of the Rent Controller dated 15.9.2006 ordering eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute on the ground that the same has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the judgment dated 2.3.2012 of the Appellate Authority, Rewari, whereby appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority against the aforesaid order of the eviction. Suffice is to say that respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on various grounds. However, the Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that the building in question is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and that respondent-landlord is in the bona fide requirement of the premises in question. However, on an appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant, the Appellate Authority held that the bonafide necessity of the respondent is not proved but upheld the findings of the Rent Controller to the effect that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and, thus, ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. The ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as set up by the respondent-landlord is as under:- “that the building in question is more than 100 years old and has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.” In reply, the petitioner had denied the said ground stating that the building was not 100 years old and the floor, roof and walls of the building were intact. The parties led evidence to prove their case. In the evidence, RW-4-Siri Chand had submitted that building was constructed by using small bricks (Nanakshahi) and the same were used about 70 years back. PW-6, Satyapal, Architect, the Building Expert, in his report Exhibit PW6/1 has stated that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. RW-4, during his cross-examination, admitted that in the photographs Ex.AW7/1 to Ex.AW7/14 and Ex. AW7/19, the plaster of the premises has fallen. Even the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, in her report (Exhibit PW8/4) has shown that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent-landlord that the photographs clearly show that the walls were tilted and there were a number of cracks and bricks were coming out from the roof. Even the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court, in her report (Exhibit PW8/4) has shown that building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent-landlord that the photographs clearly show that the walls were tilted and there were a number of cracks and bricks were coming out from the roof. The wooden structure has deteriorated due to wear and tear and the building was more than 100 years old. On the other hand, the petitioner has submitted that simply because building is 100 years old is not a ground to prove that the building is unfit and unsafe as the same was in a very good condition. It was further submitted that PW-5, Parmod Kumar Dabbas, who is a Civil Engineer, has not mentioned anything in the site plan with regard to the cracks, holes in the roof or that the wooden structure has fallen down or the bricks have come out from the roof. It was further contended that the condition of the boundary wall shown in the photographs is due to poor maintenance and misuse by the passersby. The petitioner has further taken a stand that even if the roof was leaking here and there, it was not a ground to declare the building as unfit and unsafe for human habitation as the building can be repaired with a small expense. Keeping in view the submissions made, the Rent Controller observed as under:- “46. From the perusal of all these cited cases, it transpires that the age of the building itself is not sufficient to declare a building unfit and unsafe. The petitioner required to establish that the building is not only old but have out-lived its utility and is in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and re-construction. It also transpires that even if the part of the building become unfit or unsafe, landlord is entitled for ejectment order with regard to the whole building. 47. The question whether the building is really unfit and unsafe for human habitation. A landlord is even entitled for order of ejectment if the premises is possible for habitable by carrying out extensive repair therein. 48. In the light of these well established principles, factual question before the Court is whether the building is unfit and unsafe. 47. The question whether the building is really unfit and unsafe for human habitation. A landlord is even entitled for order of ejectment if the premises is possible for habitable by carrying out extensive repair therein. 48. In the light of these well established principles, factual question before the Court is whether the building is unfit and unsafe. It has come on record vide mark-R1 that the building in question was rented out to the respondents in the year 1951. It is admitted by RW4 during his cross-examination that this building was previously known as Bhargav Boarding House. From the Jamabandi for the year 1892-93 placed on file as Ex.PW12/13 shows that a gair mumkin Boarding House was in existence even in the year 1892. Furthermore, the stone showing that the building was in existence in the year 1891 and in this regard, photograph Ex. PW4/69 is placed on file. Moreover, the existence of the stone is admitted by RW4 during his cross-examination. Furthermore, the sale deed of the year 1937 also placed on file as Ex. PW12/12 shows the existence of this Bhargav Boarding House. It is also admitted by RW4 and even by PW6 and RW2 that small bricks popularly known as 'Nanakshahi' have been used in the construction of the building. It is also admitted by RW2 that the building has been constructed that the help of lime and Rakhi(Surkhi). It is also admitted case of the respondent that the entire building was rented out in the year 1951 and no additional construction was ever carried out in the building. 49. The respondents have taken a stand that the building is 55 years old only and averred that in the year 1892, only two rooms were in existence but they have not examined any witness to prove that in the year 1892, two rooms were in existence and remaining construction was raised later on. Even from the documentary evidence, oral evidence and the photographs, it is established that the building was constructed in the year 1892 and at the time of filing of the suit, it was more than 100 years old. Though it appears that 10 rooms were constructed later on as in the said room, the bricks of 9 X 4 ½ inches have been used. These 10 rooms were even in the existence in the year 1951. Though it appears that 10 rooms were constructed later on as in the said room, the bricks of 9 X 4 ½ inches have been used. These 10 rooms were even in the existence in the year 1951. Thus, it appears to the court that these 10 rooms which were constructed later on are more than 55 to 60 years old, whereas the 14 rooms and one hall is more than 100 years old. 50. Now, the question is whether the building is unfit or unsafe for human habitation. In this regard, the petitioners have basically relied upon, the report of Expert PW6 and his report Ex. PW6/1. He also relied upon the photographs taken in the presence of the Expert, respondents and their counsel Shri Mukesh Gupta, Advocate. He has placed on record the photographs Ex. AW7/1 to AW7/22 and Ex.PW4/1 to PW4/73. However, these photographs Ex.AW7/1 to Ex.AW7/14 & AW7/19 are admitted by RW4 but he has not denied that the other photographs are not of the building in question i.e. Hindu Girls High School. 51. Similarly, the respondents have placed on file the photographs Ex.R1 to Ex.R15. From the close examination of the report of PW6, RW2 and the photographs placed on file, it is crystal clear that at many places, the plasters have come out; cracks have developed in the building;, the batons have fallen down; the bricks have come out; the building was constructed with lime and Surkhi and it is a 'B' category building. Since the roofs are leaking, the respondents tried to repair by plastering the cracks etc. and in this regard Smt. Saroj Dhillon was appointed as Local Commissioner, who was examined as PW8 but her report is of no consequence she could not inspect the building from the inside as the building was locked. But photographs visa- vis the report of PW6 and RW2 show that the building is in dilapidated condition and out-lived its life. It may continue in the same condition for five or six years but there is constant threat to the life of children studying there. The court cannot play with the life of these innocent children who are having no concern with the dispute between the parties. 52. It may continue in the same condition for five or six years but there is constant threat to the life of children studying there. The court cannot play with the life of these innocent children who are having no concern with the dispute between the parties. 52. I do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the photographs have been placed on record were the result of pick and choose. It is not denied that these photographs are not of the building in question. 53. I also do not find force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that PW5 has not mentioned anything about the cracks, falling of batons and plaster, leaking of building because he was merely engaged for preparation of site plan. The plaster outside the boundary wall itself falling down due to misuse i.e. by urination by the public, has not been taken into count while coming to the conclusion that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. 54. The photographs placed on record by the respondents have been taken from outside and from their photographs, it appears that the building is new one. All the black patches have been shown to claim that they have been developed due to non white-washing of the building. Furthermore, when the petitioner's Expert PW6 visited the site, he gave notice to respondents and even their counsel which shows that they were fair in their approach and on the other hand, when RW2 visited, he prepared the report secretly and did not mention the vital things which were required to be mentioned about the condition of the building. Learned counsel for the respondents has also challenged the report of PW6 that he has not mentioned about the length and width of the cracks but he does not deny that the cracks are not in existence in the said building. Thus, this court is of the firm view that the building is out-lived its life and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.” At this stage, it is also useful to refer to the findings of the Appellate Authority on the aforesaid issue which reads thus:- “16. Thus, this court is of the firm view that the building is out-lived its life and is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.” At this stage, it is also useful to refer to the findings of the Appellate Authority on the aforesaid issue which reads thus:- “16. As a matter of fact and it is settled proposition of law that if the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and particularly when it is more than hundred years old, in that eventuality, the order of eviction is required to be passed. In this regard, the petitioner has referred to the Jamabandi pertaining to the years 1892-93 which is Ex.PW12/13 and its translation is Ex.PW12/13T makes it clear that it was recorded as Gair Morusi Bhargav Boarding House and as such, the initial construction of the demised premises was raised in the year 1892 and as such, as per the entries recorded in the Jamabandi pertaining to the year 1892- 93, the age of the building is more than 120 years old. Even otherwise also, as per the photographs available on the record Ex. AW7/1 to Ex. AW7/22 proved by the statement of Sudesh Kumar Photographer who has been examined as AW7A and negatives of the same are Ex.AW7/23 to Ex.AW7/44 including the photographs Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/74 and negatives of the same are Ex.PW4/75 to Ex.PW4/148 proved by the testimony of Ashok Kumar photographer who has appeared in the witness box as PW4. A perusal of these photographs reveal that several cracks have appeared in the building including walls and the demised premises has been shown to be in dilapidated condition. Moreover, whatever has been depicted in these photographs has not been disputed on behalf of the appellant. 17. In order to ascertain the actual condition of the demised premises, Ms. Saroj Dhillon Advocate, Rewari was also appointed as a local commissioner. She had been examined as PW8 and proved her report Ex.PW8/4 which also proves that certain repairs were carried out by the appellant. Again the question as to whether the repairs were carried out with the consent of the landlord or with the permission of court. However, as per the report of the local commissioner, the repairs were carried out without the consent of the landlord or without the permission of the court. Again the question as to whether the repairs were carried out with the consent of the landlord or with the permission of court. However, as per the report of the local commissioner, the repairs were carried out without the consent of the landlord or without the permission of the court. Similarly, in order to ascertain the dilapidated condition of the demised premises including the age etc., Satyapal Building Engineer has also been examined as PW6. He has prepared and proved his report Ex.PW6/1 and as per his report, the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as there are number of cracks appeared in the walls, seepage in the roofs etc. The construction had been made by using Nanaksahi bricks (small bricks) and using this kind of bricks for raising the construction had been admitted by RW4 namely Shri Chand. In fact, a composite reading of the statement of the photographer, building expert, local commissioner including the statement of Man Mohan Bhargav who has appeared in the witness box as AW12, the demised premises is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Moreover, inspection of the demised premises by Satyapal building exert was conducted in presence of the appellant as well as the counsel which shows that the actual position of the demised premises has been reported in the report Ex.PW6/1. Though the respondent has also examined Shri P R Gupta, building expert as RW2 who has prepared his report Ex.R31. He has inspected the demised premises in absence of the petitioner or the counsel or any other respectable member of the Sabha. Even as per his report, the demised premised is about 55 to 60 years old and it is quite possible that approximate age of the demised premises has not been reported by the building expert. Even otherwise also, in all probabilities, the report of the building expert is not concrete evidence and it requires further corroboration by an independent witness though report or evidence of a building expert could be very base for ascertaining the actual age of a particular building. Even otherwise also, in all probabilities, the report of the building expert is not concrete evidence and it requires further corroboration by an independent witness though report or evidence of a building expert could be very base for ascertaining the actual age of a particular building. Even as per the testimony of Shri PR Gupta, building expert (RW2) who has sworn his affidavit Ex.RW2/A and proved his report Ex.R31 and Shri Chand (RW4) who is the most material witness and is the then President of the management of Hindu High School, Rewari, but even as per their testimony, the demised premises is aged about 55 yo 60 years old, whereas, as per the testimony of PW6 namely Satyapal the building expert, who has prepared his report Ex.PW6/1 and site plan Ex.PW6/2 and Ex.PW6/3 shown and depicting the dilapidated condition of the demised premises, report of the local commissioner Ex.PW8/4 coupled with the statements of AW10 and AW12, the demised premises is more than 100 years old. This fact is further corroborated not only by the statements of the building expert, local commissioner or AW10 and AW12, even is further corroborate by the Jamabandi Ex.PW12/13 pertaining to the year 1892-93 wherein the presence of Bhargav Housing Board has been recorded and similar is the position of the sale deed dated 20.9.1937 Ex.PW12/12 and in fact on the basis of sufficient and cogent evidence led on behalf of the petitioner, the demised premises has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and on this account, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller, Rewari stand reaffirmed.” Challenging the aforesaid findings of the Authorities below, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the averments made in the eviction petition are only to the extent that the building is 100 years old and, therefore, it has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and simply for the said reason, it cannot be held that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation unless the aforesaid factum of old age of the building is coupled with evidence on record to show that the building is in dilapidated condition and is not habitable. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the findings of the Courts below are erroneous and are not supported by any cogent evidence on record whereas learned counsel representing the respondents has supported the findings of the Courts below and has argued that no interference is required in the findings of fact recorded by the Authorities below. At this stage, it may be noticed that in the instant case, there is no dispute of the fact that building is 100 years old. It may further be noticed that there is enough evidence showing that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The evidence has also come on record to establish that walls of the building have cracks. The bricks are coming out of roof and even the walls are bulging in. Counsel for the respondents has also produced before this Court the photographs of the building which shows that building is in a dilapidated condition. It may further be noticed that both the Courts below have recorded a concrurrent finding on the basis of appraisal of evidence and there is ample evidence on the basis of which it cannot be said that the findings are perverse or without evidence. Once that is so, such findings are not liable to be interfered with in the instant revision petition. In Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr.Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 , it was held that the High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it takes a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. In Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction can reappraise the evidence only for a limited purpose for ascertaining as to whether the conclusion arrived at by the fact finding Court is wholly unreasonable. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. Revision petition stands dismissed.