number of years or closed and opened periodically to make it appear that it had not been completely closed down, it cannot still help the proper upkeep of the building. In this case, if the report, therefore, was that the roof was precarious and it turned out that in the course of proceedings, the roof had also completely fallen down, the best that the landlord could do was to effect repairs. If the landlord's witness was, therefore, in the course of his evidence saying that the tenant's neglect had caused the falling down of roof of the building and that he wanted to carry out repairs and put it to proper use by his own occupation or rent it out, it cannot mean that the landlord is not entitled to an ejectment and that he has perforce to carry out repairs only, without ejecting the tenant. The structural integrity depends on several factors. It is the side walls; It is the condition of the windows; and Every bit of it that gives it a moniker as a building that would require to be properly maintained. If in this case the portion of the building such as wall crumbles down, it would be absurd to suggest that a wall could fall down and still the building is safe and fit for living. The collapse of a wall is indeed a denouement for a structural integrity and it should be taken as the last word for a lack of safety for a building, for without a roof there is no status of the building. It is the roof that bring a concept of building itself as habitable. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to in Sardarni Sampran Kaur's case that a fall in portion of a roof that was repaired by the tenant would not qualify any landlord to secure an ejectment ought to be confined to the situation where before any greater damage took place, there was a repair done and the tenant was able to stave off a further destruction. In this case, it is the tenant's
