JUDGMENT
V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is landlords’ revision petition directed against the order of the appellate Authority whereby order of the Rent Controller was set aside and in consequences thereof, application filed by the landlords (petitioners herein) for the ejectment of the tenant (respondent herein) was dismissed.
2. Landlords sought ejectment of their tenant Daljit Kaur, from the first floor of house consisting of two rooms, bath-room, kitchen store and balcony besides the compound and a stair case, on the ground of non-payment of rent as well as on the ground of premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. On contest, the Rent Controller ordered ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation. The other ground, i.e. non-payment of rent, was given up as on the first date of hearing, the tenant paid/deposited the arrears of rent with interest due thereon plus costs. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller and in consequence thereof, dismissed the ejectment application. This order of the appellate Authority is being impugned by the landlords in the present revision petition.
3. Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners, impugning the order of the appellate Authority, contended that the building in dispute is about 70 years old and is in a very dilapidated condition. According to him, roof of the ground floor have fallen and iron rods are seen hanging on the roof. In reply, counsel for the respondent, submitted that the demised premises are on the first floor and perfectly in good condition. Counsel for the respondent made reference to the report of the Expert as well as some of the evidence brought on record.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. The appellate Authority on the appreciation of report of the Expert and other evidence brought on record by the parties, found that the ground floor which is in possession of the landlords except the roof of room No. 7, has suffered only normal wear and tear and is not unfit and unsafe for human habitation as urged by the landlords. The only controversy before the appellate Authority was that condition of the roof of room No. 7 is likely to fall any moment. On this, the appellate Authority found that the roof of room No. 7 was laid about 12 years back and the old roof was used as shuttering of the newly laid roof. On the basis of the report of the Expert, the appellate Authority found that after construction of the new roof over room No. 7, and old roof should have been removed, but only a portion of it has been dismantled and the balance is still in existence and it can be removed at any time without affecting the stability of the roof or the walls of that room. Counsel for the petitioners tried to find fault with the report of the Expert on this aspect of the matter, but on perusal of the report, I find that the same is not at variance with the oral evidence brought on record. It being a substantive piece of evidence cannot be interfered with unless it is shown that the same is against the factual state of affairs. Thus, I am of the view that no ground is made out to interfere with the finding of the appellate Authority.
5. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.