JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This revision petition assails the judgment of the appellate authority, district Sirmur, under the Rent Act By this judgment the appeal of the landlord has been accepted and the tenant has been directed to put the landlord in possession of the shop in question within a span of three months from the date of the order. The order of the Rent Controller was in favour of the tenant and now the tenant assails the judgment and findings of the appellate authority and appeals to set aside the same. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the tenant is in occupation of a shop situated in Nahan town. He is paying Rs. 30 per month as the rent of the same. The landlord preferred a petition under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act for the eviction of the tenant on the grounds inter alia that the landlord bona fide required the premises for rebuilding and the proposed construction cannot be carried out without the building being vacated. The landlord intends to make it a double storeyed house instead of the present single storey shop. The tenant has contested all these grounds of eviction set up by the landlord. It is stated that the premises in dispute are quite fit for human habitation and do not require any reconstruction. It is further stated that after the cement lintel the premises have gained vitality and the dampness to the walls was due to the passing of a drain from the side of the shop and the present petition has been filed with mala fide intention to evict the tenant. It is also stated that the reconstruction can be done even without demolishing the shop in question. There are other averments made by the tenant but the same are not relevant since the arguments were confined to the bonafide claim of the landlord for reconstruction and demolition of the premises for that purpose. 3. The Rent Controller framed a number of issues on the pleadings of the parties. They are as under:— 1. Whether the shop in question is unfit for human habitation and requires reconstruction ? O. P. P. 2. Whether the respondent has impaired materially the value and utility of the building in suit as alleged ? O. P. P. 3. 3. The Rent Controller framed a number of issues on the pleadings of the parties. They are as under:— 1. Whether the shop in question is unfit for human habitation and requires reconstruction ? O. P. P. 2. Whether the respondent has impaired materially the value and utility of the building in suit as alleged ? O. P. P. 3. In case Issue No. 2 is proved, whether it was done by the respondent with the consent of the landlord ? O. P. R. 4 Whether petitioner bona fide requires the premises for rebuilding which cannot be carried out without vacation of the building as alleged ? O. P. P. 5. Relief. After the trial of the issues it was held that the shop was not unfit for human habitation nor did it require reconstruction. It was also held that the value and utility of the building had not impaired materially and on issue No. 4, relating to bonafide requirement of the landlord for rebuilding after demolition the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord failed to bring the case within the parameters of this requirement and finally dismissed the petition. 4. The landlord appealed against this decision before the appellate authority which came to the conclusion that the, claim of the landlord for reconstruction was established; therefore, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside. The landlord was given decree of eviction as aforesaid. This is how the matter has come in this Court. 5. Shri Chhabil Das, who appears for the tenant has very strenuously contended that the judgment of the appellate authority is against the facts on record as well as the provisions of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Elaborating his submissions, it is contended that in case the landlord wants to construct the second storey, that can be done even without vacating the shop portion of the premises. The shop, he urges, is in a good condition and the roof of the same has enough strength to bear the burden of the second storey. So far as the passage for going to the second storey is concerned, Shri Chhabil Das submits that the same can be provided from the other side of the shop where certain bricks have been placed by the landlord. So far as the passage for going to the second storey is concerned, Shri Chhabil Das submits that the same can be provided from the other side of the shop where certain bricks have been placed by the landlord. At this stage Counsel for the parties showed and explained to me the map ^Ex. PC) of the proposed construction. Perusal of this map makes the position absolutely clear and renders the matter free from any doubt In this map the proposed pillars are sufficiently away from the existing walls of the shop. Secondly, there is enough space, say, about three feet wide where stairs for going to the proposed construction of the second floor have been shown. In this way the shop in the occupation of the tenant comes in between this space and the second storey can be constructed with proper passage without the same being demolished. 6. In view of my conclusion that the existing shop is in good shape and the proposed new construction can be done even without vacating the shop, the claim of the landlord cannot be considered to be bonafide and genuine. Shri K. D. Sood, who made serious efforts to support the judgment of the appellate authority and the bona fide claim of the landlord, has not been able to impress me by pleading that the proposed plan has been sanctioned by the Municipal Committee and that the stair case for going to the upper storey is to be constructed from the premises in dispute and that the shop requires demolition being very old as stated by some of the witnesses produced by the landlord and that the landlord has means to do so. These submissions could have some weight for consideration in case it could be held that the reconstruction of the shop was required or vacation of the same was necessary for the proposed construction of the second floor. After such a finding the second question of examining the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the vacation of the premises for the purpose of reconstruction of atleast the second floor could be examined but it is not possible in view of the aforesaid conclusion that the second portion can be constructed without vacating the shop portion of the premises. After such a finding the second question of examining the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the vacation of the premises for the purpose of reconstruction of atleast the second floor could be examined but it is not possible in view of the aforesaid conclusion that the second portion can be constructed without vacating the shop portion of the premises. Finally, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court rendered in Civil Revision No. 36 of 1983, Smt. Dakhnu v. Hem Raj and others, decided on July 11, 1989. This decision, as a matter of fact, does not apply to the facts of this case. The facts, circumstances and the evidence in that case were entirely different than the one in the present case. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the appellate authority has not correctly appreciated the matter. The conclusions drawn are not factually correct and legally tenable and the same, therefore, deserve to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, there is merit in this revision petition. The same is allowed and the judgment of the appellate authority in Rent Appeal No. 28-N/14 of 1984, decided on September 24, 1985, is set aside and that of the Rent Controller in case No. 26/2 of 1980, decided on June 1, 1984, is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision allowed.