IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No. 207 of 2001. Date of Decision: 20th March, 2008. Chet Ram …..Petitioner Versus Jai Chand and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud,Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. This is the tenant’s revision against the judgment and order of the learned appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller ordering the eviction of the petitioners-tenants from the suit premises. The landlords instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioners herein under the provisions of Section 14 (2) (a), 3 (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming eviction on the ground of bonafide 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - requirement for reconstruction, premises having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, and subletting. On the evidence on record, it was established that a fire broke out in the suit premises which consists of a “Dhara”, damaging it and rendering it unfit for human habitation. An expert witness Engineer G.K. Kapoor proved on record Ext. PW-2/A detailing the condition of the premises. On a conspectus of the entire evidence before it, learned trial court held as a fact that the premises had been gutted in fire and were required bonafide by the landlords for purposes of reconstruction, which was not possible unless the tenant vacates them. The plea raised by the petitioners- tenants that they were running a partnership business was negatived as there was no evidence on the record to establish this relationship. In appeal, learned appellate Authority has reconsidered the entire evidence on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It has been held as a fact that the premises comprise of a wooden “Dhara” (temporary hut) surrounded by concrete/brick walls of other buildings. The rear portion of the premises was covered with wooden boards and slate roof had been provided for protection from weather. The appellate authority held as a fact that the premises were gutted in fire on 29.4.2000 for which FIR No. 54/2000 Ext. PW-1/B had been proved on the record. The premises are situated in commercial area of Rampur Bushehar Town. The plot area is 15.75 Sq. meters. On the condition of the building and the requirement of the landlords, it was held as a fact - 3 - that the requirements as postulated by Section 14 of the Act as aforesaid had been proved on the record. While disposing of the appeal, learned appellate Authority has held:- “15.The rights of the appellants were fully safe guarded under Section 14 (5) of the Act and they could be restored possession in case the respondents/landlords put the building to any other use or let it out to any tenant other than the appellants. Thus, taking into consideration the various surrounding circumstances such as condition of the building, its situation, the possibility of its being put to more profitable use after rebuilding, the means of the respondents, I find that the learned Rent Controller had rightly decided issues No. 3 and 4.” I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the courts below were wrong in considering the fact that building was required bonafide for reconstruction as there was no evidence on the record to show or establish that the plan of the premises contemplated for construction had been sanctioned by the competent authority. It was also urged as a fact that the ground has been raised as a mere wish and desire of the landlords and not as a bonafide need required to be established in accordance with the Statute. As a revisional court it would not be open for me to reappreciate the evidence. However, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence on the record, I do not find any perversity which would necessitate the interference - 4 - of this court. If the building plan is not sanctioned, obviously the decree cannot be executed against the petitioners as that would tantamount to enforcing the mere wish or desire rather than the bonafide requirement. The appellate Authority has otherwise protected the rights of the petitioners in terms of Section 14 sub section 5 of the Act. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decisions of both the courts below. In the facts and circumstances of the case this revision petition is dismissed. However, tenant is granted time up to 31st October, 2008 to vacate the premises. There shall be no order as to costs. 20th March, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud), (cm) Judge.