IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.48 of 2010 Date of decision : September 9, 2010 State of H.P. and another …Petitioners. Versus M/s Ram Krishan and sons …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Present Revision Petition is directed against the order of Appellate Authority, whereby Revision Petitioners’ appeal against the order of eviction dated 22nd June, 2007, passed by the Rent Controller, has been dismissed. 2. Respondent, M/s Ram Krisshan and sons (HUF), through their Karta Shri Chander Pal, filed a petition, under Section 14 of the Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, seeking eviction of the Revision Petitioners from a building owned by them, but in occupation of the Revision Petitioners, as tenants under the respondent, on the grounds that the building was in a dilapidated condition and unfit and unsafe for human habitation and also that the building was bonafide required for reconstruction. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Petition was contested by the present Revision Petitioners. They denied that the building was dilapidated or that it was bonafide required for reconstruction. They also took the plea that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. Rent Controller allowed the petition on both the grounds. Appeal filed by the Revision Petitioners before the Appellate Authority stands dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. The fact that the building is dilapidated and it is dangerous to live in it is admitted by a witness of the Revision Petitioners themselves, namely RW-1 Kuldip Rao, Executive Engineer, examined by the Revision Petitioners to prove the condition of the building. 7. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the building is situated in heritage zone and, therefore, it cannot be reconstructed. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Buildings can be reconstructed on the old lines, even in the heritage areas, according to the Policy and the Rules framed by the Government. 8. Another submission made on behalf of the Revision Petitioners is that the building belongs to un-divided Hindu family, but the petition has not been filed through its Karta. The submission is without merit. Petitioner- respondent is Hindu un-divided family and the petition has …3… been filed through its Karta, Shri Chander Pal, who appeared before the Rent Controller as PW-1 and testified that he was the Karta. No evidence in rebuttal was led by the Revision Petitioners. 9. Yet another submission made by the learned Assistant Advocate General is that the Appellate Authority was approached by the Revision Petitioners, with the prayer to amend the reply, so as to take the plea that the building was situated in heritage zone and, so, the reconstruction of the building was not permissible, but that application was wrongly rejected. This submission is also devoid of merit, because, as already noticed, reconstruction of a building on old lines is permissible, even in heritage zone. 10. For the foregoing reasons, Revision Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, pending applications stand disposed of, having become infructuous. September 9, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J