IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CR No.47 of 2008. Date of decision:05.08.2008. Smt.Lilawati & Others ….Petitioners Versus Shri Salil Seth & Others ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.J.L. Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondents 1&2: Mr.B.C. Negi, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the tenants revision against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below ordering their eviction from the suit premises on the ground that the building has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and that the premises are required for bonafide for reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. On the evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller found that the building is about 100/125 years old and that it is of “Dhajji” wall construction and the walls are bulging out. The Court held on the basis of the report by PW-3 Shri Vivek Karol that there was structural infirmity in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 the building, the walls had started bulging out which fact was also substantiated by the photographs proved on the record. This finding was affirmed by the learned appellate Authority who further considered the report in detail holding that there were cracks in the walls between 1 feet to 10 feet, which run both horizontally and vertically and one could see through these cracks, CGI sheets in the roof are rotten; the wooden trusses cannot hold the sheets and were in a dilapidated condition etc. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on Rai Chand Jain vs. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla, AIR 1991 SC 744, Vinod Kumar Arora vs. Smt.Surjit Kaur, AIR 1987 SC 2179 and Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander and Others, AIR 1988 SC 1422 and submits that the report cannot be relied upon because the expert did not enter the premises and inspection was carried out from the outside. In these circumstances, it is submitted that he could not certify the condition of the premises. As noticed by the appellate Authority, the report is accompanied by photographs which per se proves the dilapidated and dangerous condition of the building. No inspection of the premises from the inside was required when there were cracks of more than 10 feet through which one could see. The condition of the roof was rotten which was practically collapsing and was visible from the 3 outside. The plea of the tenants that the matter be re-examined on the basis of the evidence cannot be accepted. Revisional proceedings cannot be converted into a re-trial of settled issues. I do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence. There is no merit in this petition, as both the learned Courts below having concurrently found against the petitioner on a proper appreciation of evidence. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. August 5, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.