D.V.Sehgal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.5.1986 of the Appellate Authority, Karnal, under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called `the Act) affirming an order dated 16.9.1985 of ejectment of the tenant petitioner from the shop in dispute passed by the Rent Controller, Panipat. The ejectment of the petitioner has been ordered under section 13 of the Act on the ground that the demised shop has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

2. The finding of fact which has been recorded by the authorities below can be extracted thus from the order of the Appellate Authority -

"It is proved that the walls of the demised shop are made of mud and bricks and roofs are made of the branggas and karies and are kucha ones, that is, the structure is of temporary nature which has outlived its life. Further there are plumbs in the walls and some of the karies of the roof are tilted to the extent of 1#27;«#28;/2#27;«#28; inches. The outer wall towards railway line has dampness. There are holes in the walls adjoining the doors. The chokhats have left their original position. The level of floor of the shop is lower by oe or two feet than the level of road due to which rainy water enters the shop. The branggas and karies are eaten by white-ants."

3. On the basis of the above findings, it has been held that the shop in question is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. Reliance has mainly been placed on the report Ex. A. 2 prepared by Mr. K.L. Gupta, retired Chief Engineer A.W.3, who was appointed Local Commissioner by Rent Controller to inspect the shop and report its condition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the authorities below were wrong in not relying on the report and evidence of K.L. Bhardwaj, retired Executive Engineer R.W.6, who appeared on behalf of the tenant. On going through the statement of R.W.6 and the orders passed by the authorities below, I am satisfied that his report and statement in Court have been rightly discarded. While in his report, R.W. 6 has stated that he inspected the shop at 10.30 hours, when asked to give east and west directions of the shop he stated that when he inspected the shop the lights were not on which means that he inspected the same during the night time. Similarly, there are other reasons which need not be elaborated here which make his evidence not worth reliance.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then pointed out that Lajpat Rai A.W. 2, who appeared as respondents own witness, stated that the shop is worth habitation. If we go through the entire statement of this witness, it is made clear that he stated that the shop is very old and its roof is of branggas. In appearance, however, it looks of good condition and it is worth habitation. The earlier part of the statement of this witness is based on his observations while the latter one is the opinion formed by him. He being not an expert, his statement cannot over-ride the evidence of the expert Mr. K.L. Gupta A.W.3. Likewise, the reference by the learned counsel to the statement of A.W.4 Mohinder Singh photographer who proved the photographs of the shop Exs. A. 7 to 9 is also of no help to him. These photographs leave no doubt that the shop in dispute is in a dilapidated condition. Statement by this witness, at the end of his cross-examination that no kari of the shop is in broken condition is again of no consequence as he does not say that the karies are not eaten by white ants or have left their place as described by the expert A.W.3. Referring to the cracks in the walls, mention of which has been made by A.W.3, the learned counsel for the respondents relying on Puran Chand and another v. Roshan Lal, Advocate, 1977(2) Rent Law Reporter 621, contended that the mere fact that there are some cracks in the walls does not render a building unsafe and unfit for human habitation. There can be no dispute with the observations