period of 20 years. This case has commenced through a petition instituted on 15.05.1985. To what avail that a plan prepared in the year 1985 could have relevance at this length of time is anybody’s guess. This cannot be identified as merely an avaricious attempt of landlord to evict a tenant and increased his income. On the other hand, the requirement was brought out by a resolution of the Board of Trustees authorizing a person to initiate action for eviction so that the old portion of the building which is in the occupation of tenant could be used for further expansion of the hospital. I will have no reason to suspect the bona fides. I would find the evidence brought by the landlord was substantial to gather appropriate inferences on the condition of the building. If there was an averment in petition that the building was old and became unfit and uninhabitable and there was evidence brought through three witnesses that showed that the condition of the building was dilapidated, a denial by the tenant, if there was any that the building was not old and dilapidated would hardly be appropriate to reverse the finding of the fact rendered by the Rent Controller. In revision also, it could be proper only where the Appellate authority was not considering all the aspects brought before it. The Appellate Authority unjustifiably rejecting every bit of evidence
