JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner-landlord against the judgment rendered on 28.5.2009 by the learned Appellate Authority Solan, H.P., whereby the appeal filed by the tenant/respondent was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the landlord filed a petition under Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 for the eviction of the respondent on the ground that the respondent is a tenant in the non residential shop in the premises known as Om Niwas at the monthly rent of Rs.560/- besides the electricity charges which has been let out in October, 1984. It has been pleaded that the premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for widening/construction of stair case for the upper floors of the building. It is averred that the petitioner is owner of four storeyed building and in the ground floor he has a Karyana shop. It has been pleaded that the demised premises/small Khokha shop is in the ground floor of the building beneath the said stair case it is in the occupation of the respondent. It is pleaded that the demised premises/shop being occupied by the respondent is required to him for the purpose of widening of stair case for the upper floors. It is pleaded that due to the existence of pillar/columns the stair case is not possible to be constructed elsewhere, except the place where the shop occupied by the respondent. 3. The respondent-tenant has contested the petition and raised preliminary objections about maintainability, cause of action and estoppel. On merits, the respondent-tenant averred that the rental value of the premises has increased manifold and the petitioner had been pressurizing the respondent to increase the rent. It has been denied that the petitioner required the demised premises for bona fide use for widening the stair case for the upper storey of the building. It has been pleaded that adjoining to the stair towards Shimla side, there is another vacant room in possession of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petition has been filed with mala-fide intention. Hence, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the premises in question are required bona fide by petitioner for his own use and occupation, as prayed? OPP. 2. Hence, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller:- 1. Whether the premises in question are required bona fide by petitioner for his own use and occupation, as prayed? OPP. 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 3. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file the petition? OPR. 4. Whether petitioner is estopped to file the present petition? OPR. 5. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned Rent Controller, the latter allowed the apposite petition of the petitioner/landlord. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the respondent-tenant before the learned Appellate Authority, the latter allowed the appeal and set-aside the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 6. Now the petitioner/landlord has instituted the instant Civil Revision before this Court, assailing the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment by the learned Appellate Authority. 7. The demised premises stands housed in a four storeyed building. The demised premises along with other commercial establishments of the petitioner/landlord stand located at the road level whereas three floors exist above them. The floor immediately above the commercial establishments comprises the residential premises of the petitioner whereas two floors above them stand averred to be used as godown/store. The floors above the demised premises stand extantly accessed by the petitioner/landlord through a staircase, width whereof stands averred by him to be not wide enough for facilitating an easy facile movement thereupto, also the narrowness of its width de-facilitating carriage through it of big sized house hold articles. The petitioner also has averred of the relevant demised premises constituting the solitary place in the entire building wherefrom the widening of the relevant stair case can be done. In sequel, he claims eviction therefrom of the tenant, his bona fide requiring it for his therefrom holding construction of a stair case for facilitating his beneficially enjoying the floors occurring above it. 8. In sequel, he claims eviction therefrom of the tenant, his bona fide requiring it for his therefrom holding construction of a stair case for facilitating his beneficially enjoying the floors occurring above it. 8. It is an indelible proposition of law, of a landlord holding immensity of legal leverage for determining his bona fide requirement for user by him of the demised premises also the subjective satisfaction held by a landlord qua his bona fide requirement for using the relevant demised premises being unamenable to an invasive discernment by Courts of law unless evidence as adduced evinces therefrom a visible display of the petitioner/landlord contriving his need qua his bona fide requiring the demised premises. An inference of the landlord rearing a false ground for seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises also his contriving a ground for his seeking the eviction of the tenant from the demised premises, would spur if a wholesome appraisal of the evidence on record, depicts of the premises wherefrom he seeks eviction of the tenant not constituting the only place or portion of the building, user whereof on eviction of the tenant therefrom would promote his beneficially enjoying the portions of the building which occur above it. Contrarily, if other portions of the building of the petitioner/landlord can satiate his purpose of his accessing the floors of his building occurring above it, thereupon the claim of the landlord qua its bona fide standing required by him for his user for the relevant purpose would stand blunted also would be construable to be a contrived/invented cause whereupon this Court would stand coaxed to discountenance the purported bona fide requirement of the landlord for its relevant user by him. Furthermore, this Court would conclude of the portion of the building under occupation of the respondent not standing bonafidely required by the landlord for enabling him to beneficially besides bonafidely enjoy the floors of the building which occur above it rather the subjective satisfaction drawn by the landlord qua its requirement for its bona fide user by him standing infected with a vice of malafides wherefrom a visible derivative would stand sprouted qua the petition for eviction for the relevant purpose warranting dismissal. 9. 9. In proof of the demised premises holding a bona fide requirement for the landlord for his begetting satisfaction of the relevant averred purpose as constituted in the petition for eviction of the respondent therefrom he has placed reliance upon Ext.P-1, exhibit whereof constitutes a report of an engineering expert where within recitals are held qua the relevant demised premises solitarily in the entire relevant portions of the building accomplishing the requisite engineering besides architectural parameters. In rebuttal thereto, the respondent has placed reliance upon a report of an expert comprised in Ext.R-1 where within recitals stand encapsulated of the relevant demised premises not holding the structural capacity for adding to the width of the extantly existing staircase also it pronounces of the proposal manifested in Ext.P-1 being unfeasible. Consequently, with engineering experts contrarily postulating in their respective reports qua the unfeasibility vis-a-vis feasibility of the relevant premises for its user by the landlord for adding to the extant width of the staircase for hence facilitating the petitioner to with greater facility bonafidely utilize the floors existing above it also to enable him to with minimized inconvenience carry heavy household articles therefrom on to the floors occurring above it. In sequel with conflicting views pronounced by the engineers/experts obviously does beset this Court with an onerous difficulty to gauge their respective probative worth. Both exhibits aforesaid relied upon by the contesting parties naturally hold there within proposals holding leanings qua the respective contestants who solicited their services. Since no unbiased report of an expert exists on record comprised in a report of a serving engineer in the relevant department of the Government, it would be in sagacious to place reliance thereupon for setting at rest the extant controversy. Even though as afore stated the petitioner alone holds the capacity to befittingly adjudge his bona fide requirement, however, his averred bona fide requirement of the demised premises for user by him for raising a staircase thereon for hence adding to the width qua the extantly existing staircase wherefrom extantly an inconvenient access is provided to the floors occurring above it, would stand entrenched in truth if commercial premises adjoining the relevant premises whereupon the petitioner also holds ownership not holding any structural capacity to fulfil the relevant purpose of the landlord. The expert who prepared Ext.P-1 also the petitioner/landlord in his deposition score off the possibility qua feasibility of access to the floors occurring above the demised premises being alive by a staircase standing erected from an alternative adjoining portion vis-a-vis the demised premises whereat commercial establishments owned by the petitioner exist, yet the reasons as meted by the author of Ext.P-1 qua unfeasibility of user of commercial establishments adjoining the relevant demised premises for the relevant purpose stands embedded upon the factum of it entailing the raising of an additional column thereon, erection whereof would sequel breaking of walls also breaking of its floors, whereas the petitioner has with a cryptic caprice discounted the aforesaid feasibility. However, the aforesaid reason as propounded by the author of Ext.P-1 qua hence the commercial portions adjoining the demised premises not holding the feasibility for erecting a staircase therefrom for enabling the petitioner to access the floors of his building which occur above it is per se exemplificatory qua their unfeasibility standing reared by financial unviability. Since financial expenditure would stand entailed upon the petitioner for erecting a staircase from an alternative adjoining portion vis-a-vis the demised premises, as a sequitur, the mere factum of the petitioner standing encumbered with financial expenditure higher than he would incur or expend in raising a staircase from the portion of his building in occupation of the respondent as a tenant obviously does not constitute the demised premises to be the solitary portion occurring on the road level wherefrom the petitioner can erect a staircase for his beneficially utilizing the floors which occur above it. In aftermath the petitioner is to be construed to be inventing besides contriving a specious ground for seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises whereas he can more beneficially enjoy the floors which occur above it by erecting or raising staircase from those portions of the building which are not in occupation of the respondent as a tenant besides adjoins the relevant demised premises. Therefore, the petitioner/landlord is to be construed to be not holding any bona fide requirement for seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises for the purpose which he delineates in his petition. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Appellate Authority (under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act) is affirmed. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Appellate Authority (under H.P. Urban Rent Control Act) is affirmed. The pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.