IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.R. No.67 of 2009 Date of Decision : October 15, 2009 Paras Ram … Petitioner Versus: Salil Seth & Anr. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No For the petitioner : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The landlord filed a petition u/s 14 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, seeking ejectment on the ground that the suit premises had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and also that the same are bonafidely required for rebuilding and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without evicting the tenant. The petitioner herein, as a tenant is having an accommodation of one room and one latrine on monthly rental of Rs.50/-. The Rent Controller, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 1. Whether the suit premises has become unsafe and unfit for human habitation as alleged? ..OPP 2. Whether the suit premises is bonafide required by the applicants for building or rebuilding or making substantial addition or alteration in the suit premises which is not possible without getting the suit premises vacated? ..OPP 3. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? … OPR 5. Relief. Based on the material on record, after affording opportunity of leading evidence to the parties, the Rent Controller allowed the petition and passed the order for ejectment on both the grounds in terms of order dated 31.7.2008 passed in Rent Application No.35-2 of 2005 titled as Salil Seth & Ors. vs. Paras Ram. Being dis-satisfied, the tenant filed the Rent Appeal No.45-S/14 of 2008, before the Appellate Authority, which also stands dismissed in terms of order dated 2.1.2009. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that based on the landlord’s evidence himself as PW-1 as also Shri Vivek Karol (PW-2), Shri Yashwant Singh (PW-3), the premises had become unfit for human habitation and also that the rebuilding and reconstruction could not be carried out without the eviction of the tenant. From the record, it is evident that the findings returned by the Courts below are totally borne out from the 3 material on record. The same has been correctly and completely appreciated. The relevant provisions of law has also been correctly applied. Hence, the petition merits dismissal. However, it is clarified that the tenant shall be evicted strictly in accordance with the observations made by the first Appellate Authority in para-26 of the impugned order. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. October 15, 2009. (rana)