IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 74 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 24, 2009 Sh. Ram Ghan Petitioner Versus Sh. Ravinder Sharma and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. G. D. Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner-tenant has assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In terms of order dated 30.9.2008 the Rent Controller (4) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. allowed the eviction petition No. 20/2 of 2007, titled as Sh. Ravinder Sharma and others versus Sh. Ramghan filed under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the premises in question had become unsafe and unfit for human habitation and was bonafidely required by the respondents-landlords for rebuilding and reconstruction. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The Rent Controller decided issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the respondents/landlord herein. The findings of the Rent Controller were assailed by the tenant before the Appellate Authority and his appeal No. 55-S/14 of 2008, titled as Sh. Ramghan versus Sh. Ravinder Sharma and others was dismissed in terms of order dated 26.3.2009. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the premises in question, under the tenancy of the petitioner herein has become unfit for human habitation and is bonafidely required for the purpose of rebuilding and reconstruction. Section 14(3)(c) of the Act provides as under: “(c) in the case of any building or rented land, if he required it to carry out any building work at the instance of the Government or local authority or any Improvement Trust under some improvement or development scheme or if it has become unsafe or unfit for human habitation or is required bonafide by him for carrying out repairs which can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated or that the building or rented land is required bonafide by him for the purpose of building or re-building or making these to any substantial additions, or alterations and that such building or re-building or addition or alteration can not be carried out without the building or rented land being vacated;” The requirements of the Section have been pleaded and proved by the landlords. 3 This Court cannot reappreciate the entire evidence as is now sought to be urged by Mr. G. D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel. In fact the question as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties stands settled in an earlier round of litigation i.e. Civil Revision No. 386 of 1997, titled as Ramgan versus Bhagat Ram Sharma and others, decided by this Court on 31.8.2001 wherein it has been held that the landlord has been able to sufficiently prove his title by proving the copy of sale deed Ext. PB in his favour. The Courts below have held the version of petitioner Sh. Susheel Sharma (PW-1) to be creditworthy and reliable, who has proved that the building is more than 100 years old and is made of dhajji (wooden walls) and the material used has since decayed. The landlord also examined an expert, Sh. B.C. Sharma (PW-2) who has proved the condition of the building. That the landlord has sufficient funds to reconstruct the building also stand proved by Sh. Rajesh Kumar (PW-4) an employee of Punjab National Bank, Tutu. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the ratio of law laid down by this Court in Amar Nath versus Mrs. Balbir Kochhar and others, 1997 (1) Sim. L. C. 227 wherein it has been held that there is no statutory requirement that the building plan has to be sanctioned prior to the ejectment of the tenant. The reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court and Apex Court in Prem Chand alias Prem Nath versus Shanta Prabhakar (Smt), (1998) 1 SCC 274, 4 Rakesh Kumar and another versus Bhim Bahadur and another, 2002 (3) Shim. L.C. 302 and Jagat Pal Dhawan versus Kahan Singh (Dead) by LRs. Ors., Latest HLJ 2003 (SC) 124 to hold that desire of the landlord to reconstruct the building is bonafide and not fanciful in its right perspective. There is no perversity, illegality or irregularity nor can it be said that the relevant material has been ignored. There is nothing on record which would disentitle the respondent- landlord from invoking the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. The record does not remotely suggest that the petition has been instituted with malafide intention against the tenant. In the circumstances there is no merit in the revision petition instituted by the tenant which is accordingly dismissed. Mr. G. D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel has impressed upon me to consider the document filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to establish that in the revenue record the owner is still the State of H.P. and not respondents herein. I am not inclined to interfere keeping in view the judicial pronouncement already rendered by this Court in this regard. For the aforesaid reasons the present petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 24, 2009 (PK)