JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur J. The instant Civil Revision is directed against the impugned judgment, rendered, on, 5.5.2012, by the learned Appellate Authority, Chamba, District Chamba, in Rent Appeal No. 1/2012, whereby, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the order rendered on 21.12.2011, by the learned Rent Controller, Chamba, District Chamba H.P, in Rent Petition Case No. 2 of 2006 and ordered the eviction of the petitioners/tenants from the demised premises. 2. The landlords are owners of one shop comprised in Khata Khatouni No. 1061/1352 khasra No. 3957 situated in Mohalla Dogra Bazar, Chamba town, District Chamba. The shop had been let out to tenant Prithi Singh in the years 1987-88. The respondents have preferred an eviction petition seeking the eviction of tenants/petitioners on the ground that the demised premises is in dilapidated condition owing to regular hammering of cobbler machine the flooring planks and wooden joints have been damaged. The door of the shop is rotten and is hanging in air and the ceiling of the shop is totally damaged and requires replacement. Besides this, the flooring of the first floor (Residential portion) has got cracks and requires immediate repairs. The residential building in which the landlords are residing is totally unsafe for human dwelling and can give way at any time. It requires reconstruction by dismantling the same. It is further pleaded that the landlords have sufficient funds to dismantle and reconstruct the demised premises. Further the eviction of tenants from the demised premises was sought on the grounds of theirs being in the arrears of rent. 3. The tenants have contested the petition and raised preliminary objections inter-alia maintability, cause of action and the landlords-respondents having not come to the Court with clean hands. They have averred that demised premises are in a good and proper condition and the landlords are living in the adjoining and by the side of the demised premises. They further averred that there is no danger to the building and it does not require any repair. The landlords are harassing the tenants on false pretext. 4. In the rejoinder the landlords controverted the allegations of the tenants and re-affirmed their case. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent of demised premises since 1990 till date? OPP 2. The landlords are harassing the tenants on false pretext. 4. In the rejoinder the landlords controverted the allegations of the tenants and re-affirmed their case. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent of demised premises since 1990 till date? OPP 2. Whether the demised premises is required for reconstruction after dismantling the same as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintanble in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR. 5. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the learned Rent Controller partly allowed the petition of the landlords. In appeal, preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller by the landlords before the learned Appellate Authority, the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 7. Now the tenants/petitioners have instituted the instant Civil Revision before this Court, assailing the findings, recorded by the learned Appellate Authority in its impugned judgment. 8. The landlords/respondents had sought eviction of the revisionists/tenants from the demised premises, on the pleadings, comprised in the relevant paragraph of the petition, which are extracted hereinafter, as their reproduction is imperative for efficaciously adjudicating the controversy besetting the parties at contest:- ?18 (i) That the demised premises is in dilapidated condition due to regular hammering of cobbler machine the flooring planks and wooden joints have been damaged. The door of the shop is rotten and is hanging in air and is unsafe the ceiling of the shop is totally damaged and its ceiling rafter requires replacement. Besides this the flooring of the first floor (Residential portion) has got cracks and require immediate repairs. The residential building in which the petitioners are residing is totally unsafe for human dwelling and can give way at any time. It require reconstruction by dismantling the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have got sufficient funds to dismantle and reconstruct the demised premises.? 9. On the pleaded fact enunciated in the relevant part of the eviction petition, which fact in-extenso has been extracted hereinabove, the learned trial Court formulated an apposite issue qua it, which is extracted hereinafter:- 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have got sufficient funds to dismantle and reconstruct the demised premises.? 9. On the pleaded fact enunciated in the relevant part of the eviction petition, which fact in-extenso has been extracted hereinabove, the learned trial Court formulated an apposite issue qua it, which is extracted hereinafter:- 2. Whether the demised premise is required for reconstruction after dismantling the same as alleged? OPP. 10. The learned Rent Controller, on, appraisal or appreciation of the evidence on record, adduced by the landlords qua it, had construed it to be neither sufficient nor satisfactory, to constrain it, to, record a finding that the onus as cast upon them on the said issue had come to be discharged by them. In sequel, the learned Rent Controller rendered findings against the landlords on issue No.2. 11. The reasons which had prevailed upon and had overwhelmed the learned Rent Controller to do so are comprised in the deposition of PW-2, wherein she admitted the fact that she resides above the demised premises, besides her admission in her examination-in-chief of one shop adjacent to the demised premises being in a good condition and there being no possibility of the shops caving in, tenably sequelled an inference that the demised premises were neither in a dilapidated condition nor were unsafe for human habitation. Moreover, with PW-2 having also deposed that there is no possibility of the demised premises collapsing and theirs not requiring any immediate repair, which deposition having remained unscathed, by an inexorable cross-examination, leads to an apt and tenable conclusion that the condition of the demised premises had not deteriorated or waned to a magnitude so as to render them unsafe for human habitation. More especially, when the factum of the landlords admittedly residing above the demised premises, dispelled the factum of it being in dire necessity of immediate repairs, in as much, as, given its purported immense deterioration and condition, it would not have facilitated the habitation of the landlords therein. More especially, when the factum of the landlords admittedly residing above the demised premises, dispelled the factum of it being in dire necessity of immediate repairs, in as much, as, given its purported immense deterioration and condition, it would not have facilitated the habitation of the landlords therein. Moreover, the deposition comprised in the cross-examination of PW-2, wherein there is an admission of the demised premises requiring only minor repairs, ousts an inference that the condition of the building has reached the stage of dilapidation or un-safeness and also when it had remained un-pleaded by the landlords in the relevant part of the eviction petition that reconstruction or repair work cannot be carried out without the tenants being evicted there from. Consequently, the ready and apt concomitant sequel is that the dilapidation or damage as has accrued to the demised premises necessitates only minor repairs, also then an inevitable inference is that the demised premises is neither in a dilapidated condition nor unfit for human habitation so as to necessitate the eviction of the tenants there from for the effectuation of or carrying out of any major repairs so as to render it habitable on its being rebuild. 12. Preeminently, the absence of the report of an expert pronouncing upon the fact of a severe dilapidation in the building having accrued, rendering it, extremely hazardous for human habitation, as a natural corollary prods this Court to conclude that there was dearth of or want of best and cogent evidence before the learned Rent Controller for depicting the factum of its being required for begetting its reconstruction after its dismantling having been carried out. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords has argued that the deposition of RW-3 portraying the factum of the condition of the demised premises being not good and likely to fall, conveys his communicating evidence qua the factum of the deteriorated condition of the building. However the aforesaid fragmentary part of his deposition ought not to be solitarily borne in mind to conclude that, as such, his deposition comprises cogent evidence qua the factum of un-safeness of the building or its suffering from dilapidation, hence, necessitating major repairs, which cannot be carried out without the tenants residing therein being evicted there from. However the aforesaid fragmentary part of his deposition ought not to be solitarily borne in mind to conclude that, as such, his deposition comprises cogent evidence qua the factum of un-safeness of the building or its suffering from dilapidation, hence, necessitating major repairs, which cannot be carried out without the tenants residing therein being evicted there from. The deposition of RW-3 of the condition of the demised premises being not good is overcome by the factum of PW-2 having deposed in her deposition that there is no possibility of the demised premises caving in or giving way, which deposition when has for the reasons, already adverted to hereinbefore, has been construed to be acquiring credibility, especially for want of its impeachment by way of an efficacious cross-examination, also then constitutes fortifying admission of the landlords qua the condition of the demised premises, hence being neither unsafe nor dilapidated nor likely to give way. Moreover, the deposition of RW-3 is also not sufficient to be constituting the deposition of an expert, in as much, as, he has orally deposed in Court about the condition of the building. He has during the course of his deposition neither tendered into evidence any document prepared by him, as, an expert portraying the unsafeness or uninhabitable condition of the building, sequelled by its deteriorated form, as such, his oral deposition when unaccompanied by any report prepared, tendered and proved by him, in consequence to his having carried out an incisive inspection of the building thereupon his having on its in-depth analysis prepared a report with a precise depiction therein qua the condition of the building accompanied by reasons, does not constitute a credible deposition qua the condition of the building. As a natural corollary, then the best evidence comprised in the expert opinion is amiss. As a natural corollary, then the best evidence comprised in the expert opinion is amiss. In sequel, the invincible conclusion which is to be formed is that especially when it is not pleaded that the reconstruction work or repair work cannot be carried out without the eviction of the tenant there from which absence of the apposite pleaded fact construed in conjunction with the factum of the condition of the building not having been proved to be unfit or unsafe for human habitation, fosters a conclusion that hence neither its dismantling when its condition has not been proved to be demonstrated to be necessitating dismantling, is necessary nor hence it requires reconstruction on eviction of the tenants there from. 14. Moreover the factum pleaded in the apposite paragraph of the petition, which paragraph is extracted hereinabove, also portraying in it, that owing to regular hammering of cobbler machine, the flooring planks and wooden joints have been damaged, has been falsified by the admission in the cross-examination of PW-2, of the flooring of the demised premises being cemented. The said fact has also been admitted by PW-3 in his cross-examination. However when his statement has remained un-eroded, it acquires truth and dispels the factum of a cemented flooring having been fixed upon wooden planks, hence owing to regular hammering of cobbler machine the flooring comprising wooden planks and wooden joints having come to be damaged and likely to give way. 15. The Appellate Authority without assigning cogent and weighty reasons for disconcurring with the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on issue No. 2, which was the apposite issue besetting the parties at contest and onus whereof was cast upon the landlords has only while reading the testimony of RW-3 in an unwholesome manner, recorded findings that given his statement that the condition of the building was not good besides when the premises were bonafide required by the landlords for making it a profitable venture, as such tenants residing therein are evictable, has hence, traversed, even beyond the scope and amplitude of the pleadings as also has travelled beyond the scope of the apposite issue cast qua it. Further more, as such, then it untenably formed an inference that the preponderant fact, which necessitated proof, was not the dilapidated condition of the building nor proof of dilapidated condition of the building was a pre condition for the landlord to seek the eviction of the tenant residing in the demised premises, rather with the landlords having proved the factum of theirs bonafide requiring it in as much as given its location in the thicket of a commercial locality theirs rearing a bonafide requirement/desire qua it, to reconstruct it for making it on its being rebuilt a more profitable venture, hence the eviction of the petitioners/tenants was necessary. The reasons as afforded by the Appellate Authority in reversing and unsettling the tenable and well recorded findings of the learned Rent Controller are perverse as well absurd in as much as (a): A perusal of the grounds of eviction pleaded by the landlord in the apposite and relevant paragraph of the Rent Petition unequivocally bespeak the factum of it being unsafe for human habitation, hence requiring reconstruction after its dismantling being carried out. Each of the averments enunciated in it comprising the factum of the demised premises having acquired a dilapidated or deteriorated condition rendering it unsafe for human habitation, is overcome by evidence, which has been adverted to hereinabove benumbing the fact of either its dilapidated condition or its being unsafe for human habitation, more especially in the absence of adduction of the best evidence comprised in the report tendered and proved by RW-1 enunciating therein, an opinion on an incisive analysis qua the condition of the building having been carried out by him. Its non-adduction hence, sequels an inference that the condition of the building, is, neither deteriorated nor, is, unsafe for human habitation. Besides when rather evidence pronouncing its necessitating only minor repairs which were possible to be carried out, even without the eviction of the tenants, therefrom. Its non-adduction hence, sequels an inference that the condition of the building, is, neither deteriorated nor, is, unsafe for human habitation. Besides when rather evidence pronouncing its necessitating only minor repairs which were possible to be carried out, even without the eviction of the tenants, therefrom. As a corollary, the eviction of the tenants from the demised premises on score of it being rendered unfit for human habitation remained un-established or unproved by adduction of satisfactory evidence (b) There is no iota of any fact pleaded in the relevant part of the eviction petition portraying the factum of the landlords requiring it bonafide for their personal requirement nor they have ventilated therein a desire that given the imminent fact of its being located in the thicket of a commercial hub, they intend to re-raise it or rebuild it with modern facilities, for, making it a profitable venture in as much as its then generating a handsome income for them. In absence thereof, it was insagacious for the learned Appellate Authority, to, conclude that the unsafeness or the deteriorated condition of the demised premises was overlookable rather the bonafide requirement of the landlords for rebuilding it or re-raising it for so that on its being reconstructed, it generates a profitable income to them, was the factum probandum. 16. It is trite law that any grounds of eviction are to be pleaded with exactitude and with precision. The ground of the land-lord requiring the demised premises for rebuilding it, so that on its being rebuilt, it would generate a handsome income to them remained un-pleaded either impliedly or explicitly with precision. Consequently, it was leally inappropriate for the learned Appellate Authority to introduce evidence or to import evidence qua it. Even though when under an order rendered by the learned Rent Controller, on the opposite issue qua it, formulated by it, which issue remained acquiesced to by the parties at contest. Consequently, it was leally inappropriate for the learned Appellate Authority to introduce evidence or to import evidence qua it. Even though when under an order rendered by the learned Rent Controller, on the opposite issue qua it, formulated by it, which issue remained acquiesced to by the parties at contest. Therefore given the scope and amplitude of the apposite issue and its not encompassing the factum of the landlords bonafide requiring the same for rebuilding it so that on its being reconstructed after its demolition, it would generate a handsome income for them, as a sequel it was both impermissible for the landlords to lead evidence qua the factum of his bonafide requiring it for rebuilding it so that on its being rebuilt it generates a handsome income to them nor also it was permissible for the learned Appellate Authority to widen/extend its scope and amplitude so as to encompass the aforesaid fact within its ambit and then proceed to untenably record a finding that its unsafe condition or dilapidated condition was over-emphasized by the Rent Controller, rather theirs bonafide requiring it for its being rebuilt, when proved necessarily entailed the eviction of the tenants therefrom. In the learned Appellate Authority traversing beyond the scope and amplitude of issue No. 2 as also it coming to read discardable/un-readable evidence, hence had committed a grave illegality and impropriety and its judgment is hence vitiated. 17. The summum bonum of the above discussion is that the learned Appellate Authority has committed a legal misdemeanor which necessitates interference by this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the learned Appellate Authority is set aside and the Order rendered by the learned Rent Controller, is maintained and affirmed. Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.