IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.108 of 2006. Date of decision: 23.06.2010. Shri Subhash Chand … …Petitioner Versus Smt.Kanta Kumari alias Kanta Devi … …Respondents & Another. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.K.S. Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision petition has been preferred by the tenant against the judgment and order of both the Courts below directing his eviction from the premises on the ground of reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated by the tenant. 2. The landlords pleaded that the petitioner herein, who was the tenant, was occupying the suit premises on a monthly rent of Rs.320/-. The requirement of the respondents for reconstruction and rebuilding was bonafide which could not be carried out without the building being vacated. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. On the issue of bonafide and reconstruction, the learned trial Court considers the evidence of PW-2 Nand Kumar Chopra, Draftsman, who had prepared the site plan Ex.PW-2/B, PW-3 Om Parkash, Clerk from Municipal Committee, Paonta Sahib, proved the sanctioned building plan Ex.PW-2/A both by the Municipal Committee as well as Town & Country Planning Department. The landlord Sanjiv Kumar Gupta, who appeared as his own witness, also testifies that he has fixed deposits to the extent of Rs.15 lacs and his mother has jewelry worth Rs.4,00,000/- which was required for reconstruction and rebuilding etc. 4. On the totality of the evidence, the Court holds that the building cannot be reconstructed or rebuilt except it has been vacated. The bonafides of the petitioner for availability of funds etc. were also established on the record. Submission was made on behalf of the tenant that the landlords have not explained about where they would be staying because in case the building was demolished, their residence on the first floor was also to be pulled down and that there being no evidence on the record of alternate accommodation, the requirement was not bonafide. 5. This submission was also not accepted. The second argument was that it is not established on the record the technical specifications of the building with respect to the structure being quake proof have not been established by an expert. Learned trial Court, 3 taking note of the law and also facts and circumstances of the case, allowed the petition. Before the learned appellate authority, the totality of the submissions made before the learned trial Court was urged. Learned appellate authority by a detailed order or after re- appreciation of the entire evidence dismissed the petition upholding the order of eviction. The tenant is now in revision before this Court. 6. A number of grounds have been urged on behalf of the tenant which, according to the learned counsel, constitute material points for consideration because if they are considered, the bonafides of the petitioner will be negated. After having scrutinized the evidence in detail, I cannot persuade myself to hold or come to a different conclusion. The fact that seismologist has not been examined or that the plan which was prepared purportedly does not conform to being earthquake proof cannot be accepted. The submission that since the jurisdictional fact has not been proved, the only natural consequence would be dismissal of the petition, cannot be accepted. The other aspect that some other demolition works also required to be carried out also cannot be accepted, as all these facts have been agitated before the learned trial Court. 7. Looking to the evidence, more especially when the plan has been sanctioned as also the availability of funds, I hold that the bonafides of the petitioner have been established on the record. There is, thus, no 4 merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications shall stand rejected. 8. It is trite to observe that in case of any subsequent events intervening, it would be open to the tenant to urge in execution petition that because of change in circumstances subsequent events intervening, which touch the bonafides and which have not been adjudicated in this petition, disentitle the petitioner for a decree for eviction. (See: Lekh Raj vs. Muni Lal and Others, AIR 2001 SC 996 and Harrington House School vs. S.M. Ispahani and Another, (2002)5 SCC 229). June 23, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.