Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE tenant is in revision before this court against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below, where his eviction has been ordered from the premises in dispute on the ground that the demised building is in dilapidated condition. The petitioner is the tenant in the premises from the year 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent -landlord had filed eviction petition raising three grounds, namely, non -payment of rent, change of user and that the building is in dilapidated condition. On the first two grounds, she failed as it was not proved that the petitioner is in arrears of rent or that there is any change of user. As far as the building being in dilapidated condition is concerned, it was submitted that the pleaded case was that the roof of the shop in question was dilapidated. The expert, who appeared in the court, could not prove the fact that the building was in dilapidated condition. He had not issued any notice to the petitioner before inspection of the shop. No instruments were used to find out the life of the building. He was not a qualified person. He had travelled beyond the pleadings as the opinion could be given only regarding condition of the roof, whereas he had mentioned about the walls, plaster thereof and also the flooring. In fact, there were minor cracks, which could be repaired, hence, it could not be claimed that the building was in dilapidated condition. He further submitted that the so -called expert had stated in his cross -examination that the building was in good condition when he had inspected the same. He further submitted that the building was not very old. There were other shops in the vicinity, which were constructed at the same time and were in good condition. In case, the shop in question in which the petitioner is carrying on his business had been in dilapidated condition, he would not have put his life into danger.
(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below. The expert, who was produced by the landlord, is a retired Sub Divisional Engineer, who had been dealing with the civil work during his service career, including preparation of estimates, supervising the work of contractors and also payment thereof, hence, it cannot be said that he was not competent or qualified to assess the condition of the building. As far as issuance of notice to the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be disputed that the shop in question could be inspected only when the same was open. It has also come on record that two persons were present at that time and even the petitioner had come. It has been opined by the expert that the water used to stagnate on the roof and the same could fall. The roof is in such a dilapidated condition that the same required reconstruction, which was not possible without vacating the shop in dispute. The shop in question was found to be unsafe and unfit for human habitation. As against the report of the expert produced by the landlord, the tenant in the present case did not produce any report to controvert the opinion expressed by the expert produced by the landlord. Not only this, even in the cross -examination of the expert produced by the landlord, the tenant did not put any question as to whether the building is in such a condition that it can be repaired and extreme step of demolition is not required. All general technical questions were asked, which itself do not demolish the case set up by the landlord. The landlord is not to wait till such time the building collapses. The condition of the building is to be seen. Once it has been opined that there were cracks, water used to stagnate on the terrace and with the seeping therein, the condition of the building certainly dilapidates. Normally the tenant does not maintain the building properly, which is also one of the reasons that the condition thereof dilapidates.
(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below that the building in question was in dilapidated condition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.;