JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.- This appeal by the tenant challenges the order of Appellate Authority (IT), Nahan, in Case No. 8-N/14 of 1984, dated 17-12-1985, whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in Case No. 28/2 of 1981, dated 18-10-1984 has been confirmed. 2. Briefly, the case is that the landlords preferred eviction application under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (hereafter ‘the Act) against the tenant for his eviction from the premises in his occupation, on grounds of non-payment of rent from May, 1980 to August, 1981 at a monthly rent of Rs. 14 and that the landlords required the premises for their use and that the premises were very old and in a dilapidated condition, therefore, required re-construction and substantial additions and alterations which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. It has also been stated that they were not occupying any other residential building owned by them in the urban area of Nahan Town nor they have vacated any such building without sufficient cause within five years of the filing of the eviction petition. They also say that they had got no other landed property at any other place and one of the landlords, namely, Ram Nath had retired from* service and wanted to settle down at Nahan. 3. On the other hand, the case of the tenant is that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the rent remitted to the landlords had been refused by them with intention to evict him from the premises. The averments that the premises were needed by the landlords for their own use and occupation, have also been denied. Finally, relating to the condition of the building, it has been stated that the building is not in a dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction. 4. On these pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed as many as five issues: "1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent, if so how much and to what effect? OPP. 3. Whether the premises in dispute are bonafide required by the petitioner for their own use and occupation? OPP. 4 Whether the premises are old and in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction and substantial additions and alterations as alleged by the petitioners? OPP. OPP. 3. Whether the premises in dispute are bonafide required by the petitioner for their own use and occupation? OPP. 4 Whether the premises are old and in a dilapidated condition and requires reconstruction and substantial additions and alterations as alleged by the petitioners? OPP. 5. Relief" Both the parties led evidence and ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent and that the premises were required by the landlord for the purposes of reconstruction and substantial additions and alterations which could not be carried out without the premises being vacated. The matter came before the Appellate Authority (II), Nahan where the parties confined their claim to the question whether the premises are in a dilapidated condition requiring re-construction and substantial additions and alterations. This appears from para 7 of the Appellate Courts judgment. On this point, the Appellate Authority confirmed the view taken by the Rent Controller and upheld the eviction order. This is how the tenant has come to this Court by way of this revision petition. 5. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the parties made full use of the evidence recorded in this case in order to press their respective points. Shri Chhabil Dass submitted for setting aside the order of eviction against the tenant and submitted that in view of the evidence, eviction of the tenant could not have been ordered by the Rent Authorities, while Shri Bhupender Gupta stated that the concurrent view taken in this case is strictly in accordance with the evidence on record, therefore, there is no jurisdiction to take a different view from the one already taken by the two Courts below. 6. In order to examine these respective contentions of the parties, the record of the case was examined, but I see no force in this revision petition. It is in evidence that the building in question is very old and has outlived its utility. Even the tenant has admitted this fact in letter (Ext. P-8) dated JO-7-19T1. Perusal of the contents of this letter discloses that this building is in a dilapidated condition and the landlord has been called upon to take steps or else face the responsibility for any mishap Besides this, there is money order receipt (Ext. P-4) wherein deteriorated condition of the building has been reiterated by the tenant. P-8) dated JO-7-19T1. Perusal of the contents of this letter discloses that this building is in a dilapidated condition and the landlord has been called upon to take steps or else face the responsibility for any mishap Besides this, there is money order receipt (Ext. P-4) wherein deteriorated condition of the building has been reiterated by the tenant. This admission of the tenant in addition to the statements of witnesses like Ram Nath (PW-l), P. D. Tiwari (PW-2), Ram Kumar (PW-3), and Krishan Kumar (PW-4), inspection note of Rent Controller, dated 5-12-1983, exhibits AW-5/A to exhibits AW-5/E, and the fact that the landlords have moved the Municipal Committee for the sanction of plan and have resources to undertake the construction work, establishes that the claim of the landlords is bona fide and they have discharged the onus cast on them in this regard, while the tenant has failed to rebut the same. 7. No other submissions was made by any of the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. The result of the aforesaid examination of the matter is that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The tenant is directed to put the landlords in possession of the premises in dispute on or before March 31, 1991. Costs of parties Revision petition dismissed.