The court held that the landlord cannot evict a tenant on the ground of unsafe or unfit premises if the landlord's intention is to demolish the building and construct a new one for commercial gain.

V. D. Misra, C. J.—This revision is directed against the judgment of Appellate Authority Simla, dismissing the landlords petition for eviction of the tenant.

2. The petitioner-landlord is the owner of a building known as Charlie Mount\ It had eight sets. All were rented out to the tenants. The respondent is occupying set No. 8.

3. On 22-10-1971 the landlord sent notice Ex. PX to the respondent that due to incessant rains the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and asked him to vacate the building and hand over its possession to the landlord. The respondent sent his reply Ex. D-l. He stated that the set occupied by him was habitable was in perfect good condition, and that the notice had been sent in order to make him agree to the enhanced rent demanded by the landlord. No further step was taken by the landlord and the matter stood closed.

4. After a period of about two years the landlord sent notice Ex. P. W. 6/A dated 18th June, 1973, once again asking the respondent to vacate the building since it had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and the landlord required the same bonafide for the purpose of building and rebuilding which could not be carried out unless the respondent vacated the suite in his possession. The respondent sent his reply Ex. D-2 dated 2nd July, 1973. It was stated that though the landlord had not been carrying out the annual repairs for the last so many years, the respondent at his own costs had been maintaining the premises.

5. On 4th September, 1973 the landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent. It may be noticed that he had filed similar eviction petitions against other tenants of this building. Whereas the other tenants entered into a compromise and vacated their premises, the respondent resisted the eviction,

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :— 1 Whether the petitioner requires the premises bonafide for building/ rebuilding which cannot be carried out without getting the premises vacated as alleged ? OPP.

2. Whether the demised premises have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as alleged, if so, its eftect ? OPP.

3. Whether no valid and legal notice was served upon the respondent before the filing the petition, if so, its effect ? OPR.

4. Relief.

7. The Appellate Authority found that the landlord had not led any evidence to show that he had sufficient means for reconstructing the building. It also held that the premises in dispute had not become unsafe or unfit for human habitation. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

8. Before me the learned counsel for the landlord has addressed his arguments only on issue No. 2. He has expressly given up issue No. 1 and I had, therefore, not allowed the learned counsel for the respondent to address me on that issue.

9. I have been taken through the evidence on record. It has been submitted on behalf of the landlord that he stopped spending on the repairs of the building when it had become uneconomical to him. For him the only economic proposition is to put up a new building.

10. In order to prove the condition of the building, the landlord produced two engineers as well as other tenants of the building who had vacated it. Shri S. K. Mitra (P. W. 1) is a retired Municipal Engineer. He has admittedly not seen the premises in dispute from inside. He had seen the building from outside. When he came in the witness box on 2nd September, 1976, he could not say when he had visited the building. He deposed that the building has "out lived its economic life and has entered the age of obsolescence." He went on to depose that the Municipal Corporation had also issued notices that the building is in a dilapidated condition. Now, no such notices have been proved on record. The landlord admitted that no such notice was ever received. In case any such notices about the dilapidated condition of the building were issued by the Municipal Corporation, those would have been proved. On the other