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