Grover ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of Second Appeal from Order No. 128-D of 1962 and the connected appeals fsecond Appeals from Order Nos. 129-D to 146-D of 1962 and 168-Dof 1962 ). ( 2 ) THE appellants, Jagdish Prasad and Rajendra Ku-nlr, in all these casps acquired the property in dispute, which is known as Katra Qudratullah in Gali Chulewali, Sadar ^ izar, Delhi in December 1958. Twenty persons were tenants in this property. Since the property is stated to be old and at dated the appellants wanted to rebuild and reconstruct the sime. For-this purpose they got the plans prepared which were duly sanctioned by the Delhi Municipal Corporation on 21st April 1960. It is also not disputed that estimates had been prepared and that the aopallants had the necessary funds for carrying o it the reconstruction. In October i960 they applied for eviction of all the twenty tenants under section 14 (1) (g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Eviction can be ordered under that provision if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The Rent Controller found almost everything in favour of the appellants except that certain evidence had been adduced which showed that the Municipal Corporation had rejected the plans on 28th April 1961 and, therefore, according to the Rent Controller, the appellants had failed to satisfy the requirements of section 14 (1) (g), read with section 14 (8), which says that no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground spacifide in clause (g) of the proviso to sub-section (1), unless the Controller is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let or that such radical alteration is in the public interest and that the plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary funds for the purpose are available with the landlord. Before the Rent Control Tribunal to whom the appeals were taken, it was urged on behalf of the appellants thatsection 14 (8) did not enjoin that the plan of the proposed construction should be duly sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and all that was required was that there should be a properly prepared plan. This contention was repelled and according to the Tribunal the words "properly prepared plan" meant a plan duly sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and not a privately prepared plan. The Tribunal felt that the sanctioned plan. Exhibit A. W. 4/2, had ceased to be a duly prepared plan as the period for which the sanction was obtained had elapsed. The present appeals have been instituted against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal in all these cases which was to the same effect and by which the order of the Rent Controller had been affirmed. ( 3 ) OWING to the death of the tenants in Second Appeals from order Nos. 137-D of 1962, 144-D of 1962 and 161-D of 1962 Mr. B. C. Misra has made a request that he may be allowed to withdraw these appeals as also the eviction applications with liberty to take eviction proceedings against the persons in occupation of the premises in those cases. In view of the entire circumstances, I accord the necessary permission and, therefore, these appeals are dismissed as also the eviction applications stand rejected. ( 4 ) IN the other 17 appeals, it has been contended by Mr. Misra that the Rent Control Tribunal as also the Rent Controller failed to see that improper evidence had been adduced about the reason for which the plans which had once been sanctioned had been later on rejected. According to Mr. Misra, under the relevant provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act if no building is constructed within a specified period, the plans lapse and have thus to be rejected and he says that since the proceedings were pending before the Rent Controller against the tenants it was not possible for the appellants to carry out any construction or build anything and it was for that reason that the plans were rejected. On the other hand, the view, that has been take by the Rent Control Tribunal, is that alter a particular date the plans had to be sent to the Town Planner owing to the enforcement of the Muster Plan and his approval had to be obtained. According to the Tribunal, it seemed that the plan of the appellants was not in accord nice with the new building bye-laws arid, therefore, it had been rejected. Mr. Misra says that there is absolutely no material on the record on which this conclusion could have been arrived at and that it is purely based on conjectures. It is significant that even according to the Tribunal, the evidence of the employee of the Corporation, who had appeared in this behalf, had been recorded by the Rent Controller in siip-shod manner, further the respondents had made an application to the Controller to resunmon this witness for clirification but it was rejected. In the judgment of the Rent Controller, it was said that the counsel for the landlord had conceded that the rejected plan related to the building in question. Mr. Misra has submitted that even if it be assumed that the rejected plan related to building in question yet there was hardly any cogent evidence on which it can be held that the plans which had been prepared and which had been got sanctioned by the appellants had been rejected finally and for ever by the Municipal Corporation. No order of rejection had been filed and it appears to me that both the Tribunal and the Rent Controller based their conclusion on assumptions and conjectures which they were not justified in doing. ( 5 ) THE fact, however, remains that the plans as prepared and submitted by the appellants which had originally been sanctioned in April 1960 were rejected a year later and the question is whether owing to the rejection of the plans the proceedings taken for eviction on the ground given in section 14 (1) (g) must fail. Mr. Misra has laid emphasis on what is provided in section 14 (8), which only in terms lays down the requirement of the plans and estimates having been properly prepared. Mr. Mr. Misra has laid emphasis on what is provided in section 14 (8), which only in terms lays down the requirement of the plans and estimates having been properly prepared. Mr. Misra says that if the plans and estimates have been properly prepared in the sense that all that has been necessary has been done in the matter of preparation of the plans by qualified architects then the requirement of the statute would be satisfied and it is not necessary that the sanction of the Municipal Corporation must also be obtained before any eviction order can be made by the Rent Controller on the ground given in section 14 (1) (g ). He his also called attention to clauses (k) and (1) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 for the purpose of establishing that the legislature was well aware of the existence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and according to him, it must be presumed that if the legislature wanted that the plans must be sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation before the requirements laid down in section 14 (8) were to be satisfied, the legislature would have expressed its intention in clear terms and instead of saying "properly prepared" the words "and sanctioned by competent authority" would have been added. At the same time it is not possible to lose sight of the ,fact that until the plans are sanctioned it would be exceedingly harsh and unjust to the tenants to ask them to move out of the premises in order to enalble the landlord to reconstruct the same and then have recourse to the provisions contained in section 20 (3), if the landlord failed to commence the work of rebuilding within one month of the specified date etc. It seems to me that on a reasonable construction of the aforesrid provisions it may be necessary (or the landlord, in order to establish that he requires the premises bonafide for re-building or reconstruction, to estlblish in addition to what is required by section 14 (8) that he has also obtained sanction of the competent authority in respect of the building plan but I cannot re id the words which the Rent Control Tribunal has read into section 14 (8) with regard to the meaning of plans which have been properly prepared. It is significant in the present case that the plans were sanctioned at one stage, although they were rejected later and, therefore, if the appellants can still obtain sanction of the same plans of which they obtained sanction earlier from the Municipal Corporation. I see no reason or justification for not making an order of eviction on the ground given in section 14 (1) (g ). ( 6 ) FOR the reasons given above, I allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal. All these cases shall go back to the Rent Controller with a direction that he will proceed to make orders for recovery of premises against the tenants after the plans, which had previously been filed and had been sanctioned bat later on rejected, are produced before him duly sanctioned afresh by the Municipal Corporation. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller 3rd May, 1966. ( 7 ) IN view of the entire circumstances I leave the parties to bear their own costs in all these appeals.