IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 154 of 2002 Date of decision July 15, 2008. __________________________________________________________ Savitri Devi & others ….Petitioners Versus Dharam Pal ….Respondents _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 C.R. 154 of 2002 For the Petitioners : Shri G.D. Verma Sr. Advocate, with Shri Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Shri Satyen Vaidya , Advocate __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners, who were the tenants, against the judgment of learned Rent Controller affirmed by the Appellate Authority ordering the eviction of petitioners herein on the ground that premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and they were required bonafide by the landlord for rebuilding. The learned Rent Controller on the issues as settled by pleadings held that suit premises were required by the landlord/respondent bonafide for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction and that they were in dilapidated condition. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Court considered the entire evidence on this ground consisting of the petitioner/landlord PW1 Dharam Pal who has proved the bonafide need of the landlord and his access to sufficient funds as evidence for rebuilding. PW2 R.B. Saxena retired Executive Engineer from HPPWD who examined the building and 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 vide his report Ext.PW2/A affirmed that the building is more than hundred years old and has developed cracks. PW3 Shri G.C. Negi has stated in his testimony that house is more than hundred years old and is a kucha structure and in a dilapidated condition. Learned Rent Controller on a consideration of the evidence of RW1 Shri Bhupinder Kumar and RW2 Shri Suresh Kumar, the expert produced by respondent, concludes that their evidence cannot be relied upon and further holds that the expert produced is not a qualified Engineer nor has any experience. One RW3 Gokal Ram was produced by petitioner-respondent herein to state that premises were in good condition. However, he has stated that he visited the building about 25-30 years back. The learned Appellate Court on a thorough re-examination of the evidence and considering the testimony of RW1 Bhupinder Kumar stating that demised premises are in a dilapidated condition and could collapse, dismissed the petition holding that it was not moved with a malafide motive. He also holds that the petitioners-tenants are protected by the provisions of Section 14 (5) of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act in case the premises are let out by landlord to any other person after reconstruction. On the facts, the learned Appellate Court further confirms that reconstruction of the building is not possible without the premises being vacated. In this view of the matter, the learned Courts below have rightly allowed the eviction petition Learned counsel for petitioner has urged that Courts below are not correct in arriving at the conclusion that building was in dilapidated condition. Counsel submits that the expert PW2 has not stated correctly regarding the condition of the building and that the evidence has not been properly appreciated. I do not find anything on record to hold that the report Ext.PW2/A is motivated or procured or that it does not state the correct condition of the building. True that powers of this Court under Section 24 of the Act extend to re- 3 appreciation of evidence when the findings are perverse or are of such nature that no reasonable person can arrive at which would attract provisions of Section 24 of the Act requiring re-appreciation of the evidence lest no unreasonable conclusion be arrived at. However, the record of the case does not suggest any perversity or defect in evidence of the nature conferring jurisdiction on this Court to re- appreciate evidence. Moreover, as held by learned Appellate Authority, the tenant is protected by the provisions of the Act itself. Regarding the apprehension of the petitioner that the building plans have not been sanctioned and eviction petition has only applied for evicting the petitioners from the premises, it is trite that possession of the building can only be obtained by landlord on proof of plans being sanctioned. Such objections, if any, can be taken by petitioners before learned the Executing Court, which would adjudicate it in accordance with law. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 15,2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (ms) Judge