Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - The landlord is the revision petitioner. He had filed a petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act for eviction on the ground that the property is required for personal use and occupation, namely, of the requirement of the landlord to extend the hospital and that the building had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. The petition had been allowed by the Rent Controller but the decision was set aside in appeal by the Appellate authority and hence the revision petition.

2. While examining the nature of construction, to test that it was safe and habitable, the Appellate authority took note of the contention of the landlord that the demises premises was 80 years old but the petition itself had not given any specific detail about the condition of the building. There was no averment that the beams developed cracks or the rooms were in dilapidated condition or floor was broken and the rafters have been eaten by white ants. These according to the Appellate authority ought to have been specifically pleaded and could not have been allowed to be brought to evidence without specific evidence. AW1 Rama Nand, AW2 Pawan Kumar and AW3 Kedar Nath had given evidence to the fact that the building was 70/80 years old and it was in a dilapidated condition. In the cross-examination of the witnesses, it was elicited that the Municipal Committee was alleged to have issued several notices with regard to the dilapidated condition of the building but the documents had not been provided as evidence. AW3, a retired official from PWD department, claimed that he inspected the building and had drawn a report with plan. The Appellate authority tested the quality of his evidence by his inability to state the material which had been used for construction. He also admitted in evidence that he had not tested the strength of the materials in any laboratory. It was also elicited that the report did not make any mention about the cracks in the walls but he only gave such an oral testimony. He spoke about the rear wall of the construction being disintegrating, which did not find mention in the report. His own assessment of the age of the building was by his physical verification that the Nanak Sahi bricks had been used along with chuna (lime). He had also noticed that there were cracks in the beams which were running along the roof varied from 1/16" to 1/4" and 2" to 3". The Appellate authority discounted these tracks as irrelevant, for, the cracks need not result in the total disintegration of the building.

3. The respondents also placed the evidence of a retired SDO as RW2 who also claimed that he inspected the building and found the same fit for human habitation. He did not find any of the damage beams or wooden rafters. The Appellate authority was referring to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Piare Lal v. Kewal Krishan Chopra, (1988(2) RCR 32 when it observed that cracks were shown, to exist it could only prove that it would require a repair but might not necessarily mean that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation.

4. I find that there is a very artificial straining of language of what constituted the structural safety of the building. A building which is 70/80 years old need not necessarily became unsafe. Many large Mehals and Palaces have survived for centuries and more, but it cannot be said of the same thing for small time shops or ordinary constructions. They are not to last for generations unlike buildings of historical importance that housed Maharajas and public offices. We are confronting a situation of a Trust that runs a hospital which has come by a possession of property which was constructed a long time back using age old material for construction like lime and mortar and Nanak Sahi bricks. It is in evidence that the landlord had evicted other tenants to make way for construction of expansion for hospital which it was running. This was precisely stated to be an additional