IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CR Nos.149, 150, 168, 169 and 255 of 2002. Date of decision: 13.05.2008. 1. CR No.149 of 2002. Chint Ram …Petitioner Versus Urmila Sood & Others …Respondents 2. CR No.150 of 2002. Lachmi Devi & Another …Petitioners Versus Urmila Sood & Others …Respondents 3. CR No.168 of 2002. Pradeep Kumar …Petitioner Versus Urmila Sood & Others …Respondents 4. CR No.169 of 2002. Sat Paul …Petitioner Versus Urmila Sood & Others …Respondents 5. CR No.255 of 2002. Krishan Singh Thakur …Petitioner Versus Urmila Sood & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner(s): Ms.Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. These petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as they relate to the same premises 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 and eviction of the tenants has been ordered on the same grounds i.e. reconstruction and rebuilding which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. At the time when these revisions were taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord submitted that the revision petitions have become infructuous as vacant possession of the premises have been handed over to the respondent-landlord by the petitioner-tenants. This statement is not disputed, however, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that irrespective of this fact, point in law urged regarding the requirement of landlord has to be determined as in case this is decided in favour of the tenants they would be entitled to the possession of the tenanted premises. It is in these circumstances that the matter is being taken up for consideration. Eviction of the petitioners in each of the petition was sought under the provisions of Section 14 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 on the ground that the building is required bonafide for reconstruction and that the additions and alternations etc. cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. The demised premises “Krishna Kuti”, Bharari, Shimla, consisting of building Nos.25 and 26, was occupied by tenants. To assess bonafide requirement of the landlord, the learned Rent Controller followed the 3 principles laid down by the Supreme Court and holding that the quality of evidence should be of such a nature which establishes the bonafide requirement of a landlord and not a mere whim or wish which is statutorily impermissible. The evidence has been discussed in detail by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority reassessed the evidence and held that the landlord requires the premises bonafide for reconstruction etc. In these circumstances, the order of eviction passed against the tenants was affirmed. Learned counsel appearing for tenants has contended with vehemence that the findings arrived at are perverse and cannot be supported to include within the parameters required for establishing the bonafide need and requirement of the landlord. I am unable to accept this contention. It is by now well settled that findings of fact will not be interfered with by the revisional Court unless they are either (a) not supported by any evidence on the record or (b) are of such a nature which no reasonable persons can arrive at on the material on record or (c) are perverse and opposed to the evidence on record. I cannot persuade myself to hold that the two Courts below who have concurrently held that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide, is not supported by evidence on record. The Supreme Court in 4 Rukmini Amma Saradamma vs. Kallyani Sulochana and others, (1993)1 SCC 499, and this Court in Karam Chand vs. Ditta Ram, 2002(1) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) 172 and Himachal Pradesh Congress Committee (I) vs. M/s.Salig Ram Nand Kishore, 2003(2) Cur.L.J.(H.P.) 351 have laid down in principle that in the absence of perversity there can be no interference in the facts. Coupled with the fact that the tenants have vacated the premises since the year 2006, there is no merit in these revision petitions which are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. May 13, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.